User Tag List

First 3474828384858694134 Last

Results 831 to 840 of 1614

  1. #831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    It would be nice though if they could find a sport where women and men could compete side by side. It's odd though, even e-sports seems male dominated. Perhaps the male make-up is just more prone to desiring competition and can be matched in individuals by women but not by enough to make an impact in a sport.
    You're right. Men and women have different instincts. The brain of a male looks and functions differently than the brain of a female. Sex hormones may account for these differences.

    Reference: WebMD
    Likes jixmixfix liked this post

  2. #832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Up Rex View Post
    Agreed. That's why I'm pretty loathed to call myself feminist although I feel gender equality should be a given in this day and age.
    I have a particular interest in Postcolonial feminism because that's what resonates with me, and I found the mainstream feminist narrative....lacking...in describing the experiences of women that I know, intimately. My mother's story. My grandmother's story, and so on. Likely, the feminists I will name are not ones most feminists in the "West" have heard of.

    It also points to the issue that when people think of feminism, they already have a very stereotypical, and narrow, view of what constitutes as feminism, and then, goes on to critique that, and only that, as if therein lies the issues with ALL of feminist narrative. Ignorant, at best. Erroneous, at worst.

    Feminism is as broad and narrow as you choose to view it, and the core is gender equality, yes. However, that's in theory. In reality, the narrative is more about equity, than equality (because although great strides are made, we're not all starting the race at the same starting point). And therein lies the issue of why predominantly Feminism has a focus on "women".

    As a feminist, any rational argument I make, must, at its root, be able to take that argument to its full conclusion. And, often, that means advocating for men just as much for women. Otherwise, I'm building a house of straws.

    E.g., I am against genital mutilation. And, taken to its conclusion, means I'm against it, for any individuals too young to consent. Meaning, boys and girls.

    When we think of the term, we think of it as a horror visited upon young girls and most of us in the West recoil at the stories, those barbaric others and their customs, but we don't bat an eye when it comes to circumcision of baby boys. Why? Because it's culturally sanctioned in the West? They have found scientific "evidence" for it(rife with confirmation bias)? Always puzzling to me.
    Last edited by Qre:us; 04-15-2015 at 03:22 PM.
    Likes Ivy, BluRoses liked this post

  3. #833
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    It would be nice though if they could find a sport where women and men could compete side by side. It's odd though, even e-sports seems male dominated. Perhaps the male make-up is just more prone to desiring competition and can be matched in individuals by women but not by enough to make an impact in a sport.
    Try out for a cheerleading squad, and you will see how non-competitive women are by nature. Women and men have just been socialized to express their competitive spirit in different ways, and different circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    Think about why NBA players make more money than WNBA players. It is far, far more entertaining, amusing, and thrilling to watch men play professional basketball than women. I suspect sales are much higher too and so once again, this points back to the amazing performance that men are able to show. I mean, if you really think about it, not in an isolative context but more of a comparative one (like between men and women), it is pretty obvious that men do better when it comes to physically-demanding jobs such as for example, construction and even police officers. I mean, it’s almost comical when I Google search “two female police officers can’t hold down a suspect.”

    I suppose then, this leaves the non-physically demanding jobs and they tend to be service oriented such as nursing, teaching, the back office, etc. And yes, in some ways, women might actually do better than men but I think that is all subjective anyways. I mean, it’s not like a man can’t do those things and in some ways better too. So overall, in the aggregate, it’s pretty obvious men are superior because they do well in both realms of the physical and the nonphysical whereas the female, at best, only the nonphysical realm. Of course, this doesn’t apply to all women just a lot of women.
    But isn't women's basketball just another occasion for men to ogle young, fit women running around in skimpy outfits? Seems that is worth something.

    If "two female police officers can't hold down a suspect", they have not received proper training (or the suspect is some huge crazy or drugged-out guy that two male officers might easily have trouble with). As I mentioned in some other thread that was discussing the military, different people will approach the same task differently. What counts is that the task is completed with reasonable efficiency and effectiveness. To accept the stereotypes for the moment, men, by combination of nature and socialization, tend to approach certain tasks in certain ways while women might approach them differently. Take your police officers. Men might be prepared to be physical, and to overcome a suspect or respond to a situation by drawing on their typically greater size and brute force strength. Women might approach the same situation in such a way as to diffuse it so it never becomes physical. This is why we need both men and women in police and public safety roles, working together. Note that the officers involved in the recent spate of high-profile suspect killings have been men, and usually men primed for a violent confrontation.


    Honestly I'm not sure how anyone in this day and age can still be claiming that one sex is inherently superior to the other. This post is coming suspiciously close to troll-land in the nature of its claims and lack of support for them.
    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...
    Likes Ivy, BluRoses liked this post

  4. #834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Up Rex View Post
    No, it means that historically, Group A purposefully left out Group B in the interest of political expediency, yet still feels entitled to Group Bs "solidarity" with them. It means that, on the whole, if Group B was waiting for Group A to support equality for them with the same fervency that even the most inane slights that Group A suffers, Group B would probably still be riding on the back of the bus to scrub Group A's kitchen floor.

    That's what he means.
    No, that's what you mean, when you piggy-back on someone's comment, to turn it into your own.

    You can turn this comparison into race and how white feminists are using women of colour to fight their battle when it's beneficial for them, and leaving them oppressed when it comes to other areas of life, which points to the interaction of racism with feminism (welcome to intersectionality, which was already mentioned, and which Xander likely knows very little about, just a hunch!), but, it really doesn't say anything about the broad "groups" that "separates" the feminist movement at its core - men vs (dun dun dun) women.

    No, it's more like saying, "Yes, Black Lives Matter, but I think we can all agree that light-skinned, affluent and college educated black lives matter a littttlllleeee bit more than those who are poor, darker skinned and didnt manage to complete high school. So let's focus on the first group and once we get them squared away we might have time for the latter group, but that's ONLY if some politician doesn't try to MANSPLAIN something to a light skinned reporter on television first. There are, after all, only so many hours in a day..."
    So, this is a problem created by feminism, as a whole?

    I understand your anger, I just don't understand how you're therefore rationalizing throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Okay, some explanation as that is a good point.

    My thinking first goes to if you attribute your identity to a group then you are watering down the individual. It's kind of like heading off the conversation and transferring some of your decision-making and responsibility. You cannot be held solely responsible because the group you follow says this and so it's the groups responsibility whilst also divorcing yourself from the consideration upon whether that facet is right or not.

    Now I know that most people don't do this but that then makes me question why they carry the label. Perhaps, as with MBTI, it merely represents a preference. Personally I don't get it.

    In terms of "diversity", if we all belong to clubs and represent larger concerns all the time, where does the individual exist?
    The individual is not a static, inanimate thing. The very crux of the feminist movement, actually, well...moving towards goals....are the individuals. The power of the individual to do their part, and when needed, to turn into the collective. It doesn't mean that just because I support a cause that may fall under feminism, that I support ALL causes labelled as such, as if it's a blind fervent faith, or that I can't shift from one group to another, or that there's a static cohesive group. A hive mind. That's ridiculous and shows your poor understanding (or rationalizing) of what feminism is.

    Just taking feminism for a moment. What happens if you're the kind of female who wants to be a stay home mum and have a strong leadership type as her husband? Is she not a feminist? What about the notion that this is what she wants and any attempt to undermine her decision is an isn't to her right to self determine? Consider then a woman who wants to be a car mechanic but is a complete barbie doll and the stereotypical blonde? Does she fit feminism? I doubt it'd be most people's perception. So why can't these people be Sue and Abi without the attached name for something they may or may not fully support or have any opinion on? Why can't their individual name stand for their beliefs? Isn't that diversity at its core? Who ever said that diversity is reliant upon being able to define what culture you are from? Surely that'd be less diversity?
    You're projecting stereotypes on feminists (and what "they" are like) while trying to defend against stereotypes. That's some brilliant circular logic, right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind Up Rex View Post
    The apparent disdain that most feminist have for anything that is actually feminine has always been troubling to me. It's like somewhere along the way the movement bought into the idea that in order to be considered a man's equal, we had to be able to beat men at their own game. Then somehow things went a step further where not only did a woman have to be able to "out dude the dudes" to be considered empowered, but she had to look down on roles and traits that were traditionally considered feminine. If that's not the definition of misogyny, I don't know what is.

    I'm not a man. I don't want to be a man. I am a woman and therefore anything that I do is womanly, whether I am running a board room or baking cupcakes for a school bake sale. Men and women are in fact different in some respects. The point of equality should not be to deny those differences, but ascribe the same fundamental value to that which is feminine as we do that which is masculine.
    As a feminist, I totally want you to man the fuck up. Make sure you piss standing up too. I got a bad case of penis envy. As do every other feminist, bro!

    PS - Feminist or Feminine? Oh Wait, They Aren't Mutually Exclusive

  5. #835
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    As a feminist, any rational argument I make, must, at its root, be able to take that argument to its full conclusion. And, often, that means advocating for men just as much for women. Otherwise, I'm building a house of straws.

    E.g., I am against genital mutilation. And, taken to its conclusion, means I'm against it, for any individuals too young to consent. Meaning, boys and girls.
    I am curious. Is the same true for this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    It also points to the issue that when people think of feminism, they already have a very stereotypical, and narrow, view of what constitutes as feminism, and then, goes on to critique that, and only that, as if therein lies the issues with ALL of feminist narrative. Ignorant, at best. Erroneous, at worst.
    Meaning: If you are against generalizing a wide spectrum of people composed of multiple individuals and groups under a narrow limited stereotype to present a specific critique as one with an umbrella of narratives, do you apply the same principle universally?

    Or do you follow that feminism is too wide and diverse to talk about in the context of feminist organizations, practices, lobbying history, feminist theory or feminist authors, but would not let such logic prevent you from pointing at a much wider collective - yet one that doesn't even extend the courtesy of sharing the same banner - only to call it patriarchy and criticize it as if it was a united organized club that meets on Tuesdays to synchronize it's oppressive agenda?

  6. #836
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Try out for a cheerleading squad, and you will see how non-competitive women are by nature. Women and men have just been socialized to express their competitive spirit in different ways, and different circumstances.
    British. Cheerleader seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon in the main.

    I do concede that female competitive spirit exists, the question then becomes why no female racing drivers in main competition? I'd suspect some random irrational sexist thinking involved but I don't know of any.
    But isn't women's basketball just another occasion for men to ogle young, fit women running around in skimpy outfits? Seems that is worth something.
    Wait... I thought that was everyday life?
    If "two female police officers can't hold down a suspect", they have not received proper training (or the suspect is some huge crazy or drugged-out guy that two male officers might easily have trouble with).
    If the representation seen on the media is correct I'd reckon it might have something to do with the women not weighing in at somewhere around bovine levels. It's easy to sit on a guy when you weight as much as a car.
    As I mentioned in some other thread that was discussing the military, different people will approach the same task differently. What counts is that the task is completed with reasonable efficiency and effectiveness. To accept the stereotypes for the moment, men, by combination of nature and socialization, tend to approach certain tasks in certain ways while women might approach them differently. Take your police officers. Men might be prepared to be physical, and to overcome a suspect or respond to a situation by drawing on their typically greater size and brute force strength. Women might approach the same situation in such a way as to diffuse it so it never becomes physical. This is why we need both men and women in police and public safety roles, working together. Note that the officers involved in the recent spate of high-profile suspect killings have been men, and usually men primed for a violent confrontation.
    Good point. Perhaps the role of some jobs needs to be looked at against the end objective. From r example it is not the job of the police to physically restrain people necessarily. That is something they do when other options have been unsuccessful and it can be done with technology like tasers.

    Honestly I'm not sure how anyone in this day and age can still be claiming that one sex is inherently superior to the other. This post is coming suspiciously close to troll-land in the nature of its claims and lack of support for them.
    Well it works for advertising well enough. It also works well in any arena typically dominated by either sex.
    I
    The one that still gets me is the wedding industry. It's all "her day" and everything is geared around a little girls dream.

    I did some checking before my wedding and apparently I still had to turn up. That changed things.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #837
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    No, that's what you mean, when you piggy-back on someone's comment, to turn it into your own.

    You can turn this comparison into race and how white feminists are using women of colour to fight their battle when it's beneficial for them, and leaving them oppressed when it comes to other areas of life, which points to the interaction of racism with feminism (welcome to intersectionality, which was already mentioned, and which Xander likely knows very little about, just a hunch!), but, it really doesn't say anything about the broad "groups" that "separates" the feminist movement at its core - men vs (dun dun dun) women.
    No offense but you seem touchy as all hell. What was posted was a parallel. Discrimination of any type shares a core of poor thinking with other types of discrimination.
    So, this is a problem created by feminism, as a whole?

    I understand your anger, I just don't understand how you're therefore rationalizing throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Good point.

    To give an example though the BNP, UKIP and EDF parties in the UK have all got bad reputations as racist. Few support racism. However, they all represented the common people's concerns with immigration and whether it was too much. The end result has been that the main parties have not been allowed to skirt to issue just because they didn't want to appear to be less than perfectly pc.

    What I'm trying to get across is that the ideals involved in feminism are worth working with (or however you would prefer that phrased) but the term itself has been poisoned and is taken as a combative stance even when it's not meant to be. Yes you could continue to use it but is that a logical decision or an emotive one?
    The individual is not a static, inanimate thing. The very crux of the feminist movement, actually, well...moving towards goals....are the individuals. The power of the individual to do their part, and when needed, to turn into the collective. It doesn't mean that just because I support a cause that may fall under feminism, that I support ALL causes labelled as such, as if it's a blind fervent faith, or that I can't shift from one group to another, or that there's a static cohesive group. A hive mind. That's ridiculous and shows your poor understanding (or rationalizing) of what feminism is.
    So you're a part time feminist. Gotcha.
    You only have the label when it suits you and everyone should use their extreme psychic powers to know this.
    You're projecting stereotypes on feminists (and what "they" are like) while trying to defend against stereotypes. That's some brilliant circular logic, right there.
    All definitions involve stereotypes by default. It's called language. You chose to apply a stereotype to yourself whilst thinking that you can do this and no one will change their thinking based upon it. That's just delusional.
    As a feminist, I totally want you to man the fuck up. Make sure you piss standing up too. I got a bad case of penis envy. As do every other feminist, bro!
    So you now speak for a collection of individuals and not a hive mind?

    Rage over calm logic will not help you construct statements which will aid your cause.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #838
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    It would be nice though if they could find a sport where women and men could compete side by side. It's odd though, even e-sports seems male dominated. Perhaps the male make-up is just more prone to desiring competition and can be matched in individuals by women but not by enough to make an impact in a sport.
    And this is exactly why I talked about experience earlier. Men by nature tend to be more competitive even at an earlier age. Girls tend to play with Barbie Dolls and I just don’t get how this would help them later in life when it comes to success. I suppose the only kinds of success would be harmony-driven, which once again, seems to point to counseling, teaching, helping handicap kids, and basically jobs that don’t pay well, or at least in comparison to some more male-dominated jobs such as the reality show Hell’s Kitchen where you have three extraordinary chef judges (it’s kind of sad there are no female judges). I’m not saying that women cannot be great cooks, just that it seems men are much better and efficient at it (hence, Chef Gordon Ramsey being able to cook so unbelievably amazing).

    And because of such a driven competitive nature, they tend to accumulate experience faster while females are still trying to complement their perhaps emotional somewhat fragile nature and so for them, it may take a bit longer to get their act or behavior together. But on the bright side, once they get it together, it can be amazing. Though if I was being rational, their emotional side isn’t totally eradicated because they may still retain some of it as they age.

    Here is what I said earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by serenesam View Post
    ....there's experience, personality, etc. Some women just don't have the kind of "desired" personality in certain jobs that only a man can have and vice versa with women. Hence, I talked about nursing earlier.
    So as you can see, I am way ahead of you.

  9. #839
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If "two female police officers can't hold down a suspect", they have not received proper training (or the suspect is some huge crazy or drugged-out guy that two male officers might easily have trouble with).
    It’s like so obvious that anybody with a decent amount of an intelligent brain would know that two male police officers would be able to hold down one suspect no matter how big or how strong the suspect is. But maybe you’re right, maybe I am having too many positive thoughts about men’s abilities and capabilities though I don’t think I am overstating the case. You see, unlike “two brains being better than one,” I think on a mental level, that may not necessarily be true. But on a physical muscular level? Two physically strong dudes should be able to subdue one physically strong dude maybe unless that one physically strong dude is a professional athlete born with rare physical strength gifts that the average person can’t have.

    As for your point about not having received proper training, I think you are being too pessimistic about women’s abilities and/or capabilities, unless of course, it is a direct reflection of reality itself. I mean, it just seems like some women don’t know how to react properly and immediately in certain situations whereas men, they know better, likely perhaps due to evolutionary psychology (by the way, I am a huge fan of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology but that is another long rant best saved for some other time? ) Being the natural “hunters” that they are, they are naturally good at it? In any event, perhaps your point about “proper training” is void anyways because once again, we have to come back to pure physical strength or even just how quickly a woman can react versus a man.

    As I mentioned in some other thread that was discussing the military, different people will approach the same task differently. What counts is that the task is completed with reasonable efficiency and effectiveness. To accept the stereotypes for the moment, men, by combination of nature and socialization, tend to approach certain tasks in certain ways while women might approach them differently. Take your police officers. Men might be prepared to be physical, and to overcome a suspect or respond to a situation by drawing on their typically greater size and brute force strength. Women might approach the same situation in such a way as to diffuse it so it never becomes physical. This is why we need both men and women in police and public safety roles, working together. Note that the officers involved in the recent spate of high-profile suspect killings have been men, and usually men primed for a violent confrontation.
    And so why should women get paid more if men are doing the harder work of the actual physical act of apprehension?

    Honestly I'm not sure how anyone in this day and age can still be claiming that one sex is inherently superior to the other. This post is coming suspiciously close to troll-land in the nature of its claims and lack of support for them.
    I think you just fail to recognize the pure physical anatomy of the human male compared to the human female. Seriously, it really isn’t that hard.

    But I do admire some people's desire for wanting to be politically correct. And no, I don't believe gender is a social construct no matter what my teachers may have taught me.

  10. #840
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    467

    Default

    As for police officers killing black people, I think that is a different topic/issue/discussion. And no, I don't believe race is a social construct too but that is a discussion best saved for some other time.

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