User Tag List

Page 46 of 162 FirstFirst ... 3644454647485696146 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 1614

Thread: 3rd wave feminism

  1. #451
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    19,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    Because you are the one asking the questions. duhh
    You ask questions as a consequence of a lack of understanding alone? Do you make a lot of conversation with people online and offline? Which do you do the most?

    Also, on a related note, do you have more female than male friends? Do you think it may influence your opinion of this topic?

  2. #452
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    Reminds me of this recent news article.

    Boston researchesr discover chivalrous men are actually just sexist | Metro News

    The main thing I garnered from it was that it's a good thing to just be helpful to everyone. If you're going through a door and someone else does, hold the damn door open for them regardless of their gender.

    It's just common courtesy to ask if someone needs help with something, if you think they need it, but ask first if they haven't told you many times before. Obviously if she's 4'11" and her lightbulb needs changing, and you don't have a stepladder or a big chair, you might not need to ask, but I don't like making women feel they can't do anything.

    BTW me and my wife sometimes argue over who gets to put up shelves. But as you say, each to their own
    Stupid you just contradicted yourself you say if she's 4 11 its OK to be chivalrous but women as a whole are physically inferior to men which is part of the reason why men are chivalrous.Women on average are also shorter than men.

  3. #453
    Tempbanned Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You ask questions as a consequence of a lack of understanding alone? Do you make a lot of conversation with people online and offline? Which do you do the most?

    Also, on a related note, do you have more female than male friends? Do you think it may influence your opinion of this topic?
    95% of the time I ask questions because I genuinley don't know the answer instead of being an instigating prick.I don't think having more female friends would change my opinion.

  4. #454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    Reminds me of this recent news article.

    Boston researchesr discover chivalrous men are actually just sexist | Metro News

    The main thing I garnered from it was that it's a good thing to just be helpful to everyone. If you're going through a door and someone else does, hold the damn door open for them regardless of their gender.

    It's just common courtesy to ask if someone needs help with something, if you think they need it, but ask first if they haven't told you many times before. Obviously if she's 4'11" and her lightbulb needs changing, and you don't have a stepladder or a big chair, you might not need to ask, but I don't like making women feel they can't do anything.

    BTW me and my wife sometimes argue over who gets to put up shelves. But as you say, each to their own
    Does your wife still find you sexually attractive? If I had to argue with my husband over who puts up shelves, not only would I put up the shelves myself, properly anchored and perfectly aligned, I'd happily file for divorce the next day. To each his own and more importantly, enjoy the shelves while you can because what's yours is mine.

  5. #455
    Lex Parsimoniae Array Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You are basically asking the question of whether or not we should have feminism or egalitarianism. Trying to answer that question runs us smack into the intercategorical-anticategorical dilemma.

    WTF is that, you say? Basically, an intercategorical approach means acknowledging and more a less accepting existing social categories, and use that to make distinctions between the more and less privileged ones, to understand what we have to change to make society fair. An anticategorical approach says that the division of people into categories is itself the root of prejudice and discrimination, so the only thing we can ever really do to end these practices is leave the categories behind.

    You are probably more of the anticategorical mindset, if I had to guess.

    I personally think both of these have pros and cons, and that this problem is a very difficult one. I agree with the ultimate conclusion of anticategoricalism; if we ever hope to complete end prejudice between certain groups, we have to simply reject the concept of those groups at all. The problem is, successfully switching to an anticategorical mindset before conditions between groups is equal enough, might simply result in people coming to ignore the problem before the injustices of inequality are actually gone (see Stephen Colbert's running joke about being "color blind").

    So it's a situation where there's a certain step that has to be taken in order to ever achieve the goal, but if the step is taken too soon everything goes to shit.
    As I see it the nonsense of providing the electorate with an all women shortlist because they need a woman in the post to bump the numbers undermines the female agenda as it implies they couldn't beat a male to the post as well as undermining the democratic process by telling the electorate that they must elect a woman, regardless of competence, because the numbers aren't what they want.

    The same goes in business. I'd hate to get a job because a company needed more men to even the numbers out. Either I qualify as worker unit number seven or I don't. Same rule for everyone.

    All I see day after day is pressure group this, minority that, ists and isms all over the place. No sense of unity, no sense of equality. Everyone just out to get the best deal for their group. How will that ever lead to equality? It just seems to lead to a conflict where the strongest will win which is what we're trying to undo surely?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #456
    lurking Array Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,900

    Default

    Man being chivalrous: sexist
    Man being unchivalrous: misogynist

  7. #457
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    19,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jixmixfix View Post
    95% of the time I ask questions because I genuinley don't know the answer instead of being an instigating prick.I don't think having more female friends would change my opinion.
    You think that asking questions involves being an instigating prick?

    I hope you make more female friends, do you think that your views about feminism or about women could effect that?

  8. #458
    Strongly Ambivalent Array Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Man being chivalrous: sexist
    Man being unchivalrous: misogynist
    No, not necessarily. He could just be an asshole. If he's an asshole to women out of proportion to how much he's an asshole to men, then he might also be a misogynist.

    Edited to add: a man being truly chivalrous is not being sexist, IMO, because chivalry requires a degree of selflessness and would not impose help if it would not be appreciated. A man being "chivalrous" only to attractive women and not little old ladies they have no interest in banging? Or a man being "chivalrous" by preventing a woman from doing something she actually wants to do herself? Up for grabs. Actually, chivalry would make an interesting thread topic. I wonder if it already is one?
    Likes Rasofy, prplchknz liked this post

  9. #459
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    19,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    As I see it the nonsense of providing the electorate with an all women shortlist because they need a woman in the post to bump the numbers undermines the female agenda as it implies they couldn't beat a male to the post as well as undermining the democratic process by telling the electorate that they must elect a woman, regardless of competence, because the numbers aren't what they want.

    The same goes in business. I'd hate to get a job because a company needed more men to even the numbers out. Either I qualify as worker unit number seven or I don't. Same rule for everyone.

    All I see day after day is pressure group this, minority that, ists and isms all over the place. No sense of unity, no sense of equality. Everyone just out to get the best deal for their group. How will that ever lead to equality? It just seems to lead to a conflict where the strongest will win which is what we're trying to undo surely?
    To be honest a lot of the changes and all female short lists have been proven to be less about feminism, egalitarianism (even egalitarianism as sameness) and more about a dick move to try and take advantage of what is vulgarly referred to as "babe theory of politics" but which is a real thing.

    Consider why broadcasters, the weather, the news casters are all women?

    Its not combatting sexism its taking advantage of sexism.

  10. #460
    Senior Member Array Lark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    19,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    No, not necessarily. He could just be an asshole. If he's an asshole to women out of proportion to how much he's an asshole to men, then he might also be a misogynist.

    Edited to add: a man being truly chivalrous is not being sexist, IMO, because chivalry requires a degree of selflessness and would not impose help if it would not be appreciated. A man being "chivalrous" only to attractive women and not little old ladies they have no interest in banging? Or a man being "chivalrous" by preventing a woman from doing something she actually wants to do herself? Up for grabs. Actually, chivalry would make an interesting thread topic. I wonder if it already is one?
    You can be an equal opportunities asshole, you can be more of an asshole to some groups than others without especially hating them, mysogyny deserves to remain being a fairly narrowly defined label.

    If they actually hate women then they deserve that label.

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
  •