User Tag List

Page 103 of 162 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113153 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #1021
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot Array SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    I have a good friend who is a social worker. He works primarily with at-risk teenage boys to help them to be able to process what they are going through in their family lives and other daily interactions, to have feelings available to them other than just anger and lust.

    He is an amazing, strong, caring person who puts his money - and time - where his mouth is.
    Awesome!

    I think you will find this video to be 'useful' and doubly so for your friend. Spetsnaz is a mental health professional who gives talks/seminars on the work he does, which is working with men.


    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes jixmixfix liked this post

  2. #1022
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot Array SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I agree, but there shouldn't be "male standards" and "female standards", except when assessing an individual's health due to anatomical differences. Standards should be directly related to the requirements of the job or position, with the understanding that men and women might accomplish a task in different ways, to make the most of individual advantages. If 90% of women can't meet the standards for a certain job, obviously they shouldn't be assigned to it. But this shouldn't exclude the 10% who can, or give a pass to the 10% of men who cannot, just because they are men.
    There should only be 'standards'. Male/female standards were incorporated when females were allowed into the military ostensibly for support or non-combat roles as per their historic role in warfare. However females as a group were not able to meet 'the standard', hence the birth of a different standard, male/female. However men who want to join the military still have to meet 'the standard' even though they were going to be fulfilling a support role, i.e. accounting, supply, recruitment etc. As the female role in the military is opening up it's time to do away with male/female standards and revert back to 'the standard'. However if 'we' are inclined to keep two standards I suggest they be renamed to something more accurate; combat/non-combat, thereby allowing men to enter the military in a non-combat capacity who would might otherwise be turned away.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes Xander liked this post

  3. #1023
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot Array SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Well I never said otherwise, and the question wasn't meant to imply anything about you specifically.

    It's just that I've seen this used various ways (by other people) and I have to wonder what their reasoning is for pointing out that half of women fail at something (just as an example). If the other half are passing, that's good, right? That's not even an insubstantial number.

    I just find it odd that in some minds (not yours) failures seem to reflect upon the successful, as if the half that passed equal tests are still somehow inferior because the other half failed. They passed, didn't they? Shouldn't they individually be counted as peers, rather than still somehow tainted by the inferiority of an entirely different subset?
    You could google the 'USMC and female standards' to understand the thinking behind their concern. The issue, I believe as they framed it had nothing to do with those who passed it, great for them, but rather the cost for those who didn't. The amount of money spent on any given trainee only to have them fail. I think it was/is $50k? This seems easily rectifiable, prescreen, duh. However what about the women already in the military?

    Anyways looking at the issue from a gender politics angle. Can you imagine the complaining when/if 40-50%, heck even 10% imo, of the women currently in the military are forced out due to not meeting a universal standard?

    OMG The WAR On Women!!!

    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #1024
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot Array SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Men Humans are being slowly replaced by machines you know.
    Fixed.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes jixmixfix liked this post

  5. #1025
    Mojibake Array sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post

    OMG The WAR On Women!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    Fixed.
    Is that entirely fucking necessary

    Edit: nevermind. I see what you are saying.

    My gosh I am fucking grouchy this morning. I'm going back to bed.

  6. #1026
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    Agreed.

    Why do 'we' condition men this way? Gynocentrism. Society values the egg carrier more than the sperm carrier and since human conflict is inevitable and when it becomes time to risk lives via warfare 'we' toss the men into the fray as they are less valuable, aka male disposability. The means to conduct warfare has changed dramatically however, but I digress. We therefore condition men to be stoic and to self succor and repress their fear, shame, guilt, emotions = bad (and what gets repressed becomes projected...). Men aren't born this way, they are made this way, because one day society may deem it necessary to engage in warfare and it's the men that do the dying. It's OK though, society will 'reward' your valor/sacrifice and your feats will be sung in the annals of history, ok not really. To the men who have zero interest in risking/sacrificing your life one word, conscription.
    I find this part of anti-feminist reasoning to be very questionable. It's taking feminism and just reversing the complaints, and ignoring that some of the biggest flaws of feminist reasoning include a tendency to describe an overall "system" that needs to be updated and overthrown. I find most such reasoning in favor of any cause to be tendentious in the extreme.

    Society and culture are more complicated than that. There are patterns, yes, but they're the patterns of self-organizing principles, the patterns of chaos theory, the patterns of evolution. Think of it as a giant Ouija board with everyone pushing this way and that: some people believe it moves on its own, other people believe that some people are cheating and making it spell out things, and still others are actively trying to cheat and very frustrated that cheating doesn't work as well as they'd like.

    The relationship between feminism and marriage as proposed by the OP is tenuous. Charles Murray in "Coming Apart" (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010: Charles Murray: 9780307453433: Amazon.com: Books) notes that while marriage rates declined in both lower and upper classes, it steadied at a fairly high rate for upper classes back in the 80s, while it continued to decline for the lower classes. If there were an overall societal pressure that was discouraging marriage, we should see it more evenly distributed. That it declined some for all classes implies that the feminism and overall egalitarian ideas of the 60s and 70s had some contribution to the overall decline, but the vast majority of the decline would appear to be due more to economic reasons and perhaps political policy reasons.

    My personal interpretation of this is that there is a large degree of wealth to be had from being married, not all of it easily expressed by material standards of living, but rather a social infrastructure that supports material wealth and wealth generation. Marriage creates families. Families have built-in social contacts and social support. This support doesn't come just from having children, though that is a fairly significant aspect in later years. It also comes from having in-laws: two families now bound together by marriage naturally expand their social connections and gain more avenues of support.

    I have noticed, btw, that this view of families is very easily dismissed by those who did not grow up with or marry into such an environment. Their experience instead tends to include broken and dysfunctional family dynamics. Such people will not see great value in having a family and will tend to distrust marriage and family.

    That second point, about broken families, would tend to explain the patterns observed by Murray. People who grew up with intact families tend to build on that social capital and hence build/retain wealth. People who grew up with broken families tend to be more poor and lack incentive to build the kind of social capital of family that helps create wealth and security.

    Finally, political policy has a strong hand in this. In the modern era, our welfare and tax policies effectively pay people to not be married (that's its own discussion, so I won't go into detail here). In the past, it was very advantageous to get married and have children (more children was a source of wealth, as each would become a productive human being over time) even if you came from a broken family. These days, there is a (short term, highly visible) financial incentive to not get married. That incentive is especially strong for the poor. The rich can afford to pay for the financial disincentives (mostly the "marriage tax" at these levels of income) of getting married and having a family, and thus gain the more invisible, less-obvious, long-term benefits of having a family.

    In my view, that's what has "destroyed marriage", and has also destroyed the desirability of having a family for a lot of people in the United States. I see modern feminism (and its mirror-image anti-feminist and MGTOW types) as trying to describe this current state of affairs as desirable. Both see the same problem, and blame "society" for it, especially their perceived biases of society. I think both analyses are wrong. There is no gender-based explanation for this, though the symptoms of the problem are very much gender-based. The real explanation is, I believe, as I have given above. There are policies that exist now, that did not exist in the past, that curtail the formation of families, and those policies affect the poor more than the rich.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes Ivy, SpankyMcFly, SD45T-2 liked this post

  7. #1027
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    but the vast majority of the decline would appear to be due more to economic reasons and perhaps political policy reasons.
    Where do you think the influence of this political policy came from?



    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Finally, political policy has a strong hand in this. In the modern era, our welfare and tax policies effectively pay people to not be married (that's its own discussion, so I won't go into detail here).
    Again more feminist reformed policy that you fail to recognize.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    In my view, that's what has "destroyed marriage", and has also destroyed the desirability of having a family for a lot of people in the United States. I see modern feminism (and its mirror-image anti-feminist and MGTOW types) as trying to describe this current state of affairs as desirable. Both see the same problem, and blame "society" for it, especially their perceived biases of society. I think both analyses are wrong. There is no gender-based explanation for this, though the symptoms of the problem are very much gender-based. The real explanation is, I believe, as I have given above. There are policies that exist now, that did not exist in the past, that curtail the formation of families, and those policies affect the poor more than the rich.
    This type of welfare practice which allows single mother to be given government handouts is unsustainable in the long run. Many know this and thus are trying to reform certain policies so that men are rewarded for having a family instead disowned and thrown as a disposable cash cow.The government today is a women's sugar daddy instead of men, young girls are grown up without fathers they respect because their fathers have been screwed over by the system which has nothing to do with them "not being real men" and so the spiral of female entitlement and a man hating culture continues.

  8. #1028
    Happy Dancer Array uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Where do you think the influence of this political policy came from?
    Not feminism. If I had to assign a gender-based "ism" to it, I'd say the data points to the "Patriarchy". The AFDC program started in 1935. It got replaced in 1996 with Bill Clinton's work-related reforms, but the new version is essentially the same.

    In that day and age, it was a desire to provide social benefits to those who were unlucky, who lost their primary breadwinner. Aid was provided, initially, to white single mothers, who were expected not to work (because patriarchy). Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It was only later expanded in the 60s to include black women, with drastic results on that demographic. The main difference after that point is that aid was now provided to working women who otherwise met the criteria. The dynamic of women being expected to work can be validly regarded as a result of feminism, at least to some degree. The dynamic of paying women to support their children has its roots in more patriarchal ideas, because women couldn't be expected to work in that era.

    Feminism isn't at the root of this dynamic, but rather an older program designed for a prior era being applied to a new era in which social expectations changed in part due to feminism.

    Try researching your ideas and see where they come from. A lot of them have unexpected origins. We tend to naively believe that our cultural values are constant, and we tend to apply them retroactively to judge the past or otherwise draw conclusions about past motivations that are entirely incorrect because they don't account for past culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    This type of welfare practice which allows single mother to be given government handouts is unsustainable in the long run. Many know this and thus are trying to reform certain policies so that men are rewarded for having a family instead disowned and thrown as a disposable cash cow.The government today is a women's sugar daddy instead of men, young girls are grown up without fathers they respect because their fathers have been screwed over by the system which has nothing to do with them "not being real men" and so the spiral of female entitlement and a man hating culture continues.
    For the record, while I disagree with some of the loaded terms you use to describe this, I agree with your overall observation. There is a strong disincentive not to marry, but to acknowledge that politically would jeopardize the existence of that welfare program which has a lot of vested interests. It's not feminism keeping things this way, but the political desire to keep (even unsustainable!) benefits going, of whatever type. Social security has the same dynamic.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.
    Likes SD45T-2 liked this post

  9. #1029
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot Array SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I find this part of anti-feminist reasoning to be very questionable. It's taking feminism and just reversing the complaints, and ignoring that some of the biggest flaws of feminist reasoning include a tendency to describe an overall "system" that needs to be updated and overthrown. I find most such reasoning in favor of any cause to be tendentious in the extreme.

    Society and culture are more complicated than that. There are patterns, yes, but they're the patterns of self-organizing principles, the patterns of chaos theory, the patterns of evolution. Think of it as a giant Ouija board with everyone pushing this way and that: some people believe it moves on its own, other people believe that some people are cheating and making it spell out things, and still others are actively trying to cheat and very frustrated that cheating doesn't work as well as they'd like.

    The relationship between feminism and marriage as proposed by the OP is tenuous. Charles Murray in "Coming Apart" (Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010: Charles Murray: 9780307453433: Amazon.com: Books) notes that while marriage rates declined in both lower and upper classes, it steadied at a fairly high rate for upper classes back in the 80s, while it continued to decline for the lower classes. If there were an overall societal pressure that was discouraging marriage, we should see it more evenly distributed. That it declined some for all classes implies that the feminism and overall egalitarian ideas of the 60s and 70s had some contribution to the overall decline, but the vast majority of the decline would appear to be due more to economic reasons and perhaps political policy reasons.

    My personal interpretation of this is that there is a large degree of wealth to be had from being married, not all of it easily expressed by material standards of living, but rather a social infrastructure that supports material wealth and wealth generation. Marriage creates families. Families have built-in social contacts and social support. This support doesn't come just from having children, though that is a fairly significant aspect in later years. It also comes from having in-laws: two families now bound together by marriage naturally expand their social connections and gain more avenues of support.

    I have noticed, btw, that this view of families is very easily dismissed by those who did not grow up with or marry into such an environment. Their experience instead tends to include broken and dysfunctional family dynamics. Such people will not see great value in having a family and will tend to distrust marriage and family.

    That second point, about broken families, would tend to explain the patterns observed by Murray. People who grew up with intact families tend to build on that social capital and hence build/retain wealth. People who grew up with broken families tend to be more poor and lack incentive to build the kind of social capital of family that helps create wealth and security.

    Finally, political policy has a strong hand in this. In the modern era, our welfare and tax policies effectively pay people to not be married (that's its own discussion, so I won't go into detail here). In the past, it was very advantageous to get married and have children (more children was a source of wealth, as each would become a productive human being over time) even if you came from a broken family. These days, there is a (short term, highly visible) financial incentive to not get married. That incentive is especially strong for the poor. The rich can afford to pay for the financial disincentives (mostly the "marriage tax" at these levels of income) of getting married and having a family, and thus gain the more invisible, less-obvious, long-term benefits of having a family.

    In my view, that's what has "destroyed marriage", and has also destroyed the desirability of having a family for a lot of people in the United States. I see modern feminism (and its mirror-image anti-feminist and MGTOW types) as trying to describe this current state of affairs as desirable. Both see the same problem, and blame "society" for it, especially their perceived biases of society. I think both analyses are wrong. There is no gender-based explanation for this, though the symptoms of the problem are very much gender-based. The real explanation is, I believe, as I have given above. There are policies that exist now, that did not exist in the past, that curtail the formation of families, and those policies affect the poor more than the rich.
    An excellent and meaty post which I will respond to more comprehensively in a later post, as it deserves.

    I'd like to show you a clip of someone who has an 'informed' opinion on why men are not getting married. Forensic Psychologist Dr. Helen Smith Helen Smith (psychologist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but first a snapshot from 2013 of the state of affairs.







    As Helen notes in the video but I feel it's important to reiterate here: "...that's a different topic (referring to the benefits of 'marriage' as espoused by the female commentator) those are also things you can get with a relationship. We're talking about the legal aspect of marriage. I'm talking about the political and legal ramifications of marriage." There are very few benefits to the contract of marriage vs. cohabitation. People are still coupling up and making babies, family unit creation, but not getting married. One look at children born out of wedlock stats overlayed by the marriage rate shows this.

    Cohabitation is the 'new' marriage. Therefore 'moving out' is the new divorce. This 'began' decades ago and is ongoing.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    There are policies that exist now, that did not exist in the past, that curtail the formation of families, and those policies affect the poor more than the rich.
    Agreed.

    Where did these policies come from? Who advocated for them?
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft
    Likes jixmixfix liked this post

  10. #1030
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Not feminism. If I had to assign a gender-based "ism" to it, I'd say the data points to the "Patriarchy". The AFDC program started in 1935. It got replaced in 1996 with Bill Clinton's work-related reforms, but the new version is essentially the same.

    In that day and age, it was a desire to provide social benefits to those who were unlucky, who lost their primary breadwinner. Aid was provided, initially, to white single mothers, who were expected not to work (because patriarchy). Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It was only later expanded in the 60s to include black women, with drastic results on that demographic. The main difference after that point is that aid was now provided to working women who otherwise met the criteria. The dynamic of women being expected to work can be validly regarded as a result of feminism, at least to some degree. The dynamic of paying women to support their children has its roots in more patriarchal ideas, because women couldn't be expected to work in that era.

    Feminism isn't at the root of this dynamic, but rather an older program designed for a prior era being applied to a new era in which social expectations changed in part due to feminism.

    Try researching your ideas and see where they come from. A lot of them have unexpected origins. We tend to naively believe that our cultural values are constant, and we tend to apply them retroactively to judge the past or otherwise draw conclusions about past motivations that are entirely incorrect because they don't account for past culture.
    I think there are a lot of misconceptions here about what your are trying to convey in your argument. The term patriarchy is defined by feminists which states that men have oppressed women throughout history due to socially constructed gender roles, this has been proven by evolutionary psychology to be a myth and I showed an example of this when i posted a video earlier in this thread by Dr Robert Sapolsky. Evolutionary psychology proves that gender roles is not a concept that is defined by society or (the patriarchy) but by our biological makeup. This is because throughout human history a women's survival was much more important to the survival of our species than a man's survival. For example 1 man is only needed to produce sperm for 5 females for our species to thrive, this is due to a women only being able to produce 1 offspring every 9 months which then equals to 5 children every 9 months. However If your reverse this dynamic and have 5 men but only 1 women you will only get 1 child every 9 months. The reason why women were encouraged by previous generation to stay home was because it would insure that survival of our species since most the jobs during the early 1900's were still jobs that included heavy amounts of manual labour. Also I disagree with you that "the dynamic of paying women being expected to work can regarded as a result of feminism". The dynamic of paying women being expected to work is a result of technology and more job opportunities that don't envolve manual labor, if you look at society today men are still encouraged to work jobs that require heavy amounts of manual labour and risk taking. This is due again to the biological makeup of gender roles. Society has been constructed during the 1950's by feminism so that more women would graduate from universities and colleges so that they aren't forced to do work that requires any form of manual labour. Feminism is essentially traditionalism dialed up which eventually leads to female entitlement and false women hood.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    For the record, while I disagree with some of the loaded terms you use to describe this, I agree with your overall observation. There is a strong disincentive not to marry, but to acknowledge that politically would jeopardize the existence of that welfare program which has a lot of vested interests. It's not feminism keeping things this way, but the political desire to keep (even unsustainable!) benefits going, of whatever type. Social security has the same dynamic.
    Our move towards a society which abandons our own biological makeup which gives special privileges to women and demonizes men is unsustainable because jobs that would normally be given to men are now gimped and given to women. I have to ask that if women are so competent and independent then why are they electing government officials that provide them with extra benefits and privileges? instead of depending on men to support them they are depending on the government which is unsustainable in the long run and further runs our economy into debt.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl, SpankyMcFly liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •