First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Teenage Sexism
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12 , edited 8/22/12

AshRandom wrote:

It seems feminists are being asked to defend themselves against the accusation that their real attitude is not one which demands equality, but one which seeks imbalanced entitlement.

I can't help but analyze this two ways, but skipping the reductionist argument, it's likely this accusatory viewpoint evolved entirely as a result of men interpreting the situation through the lens of sexual-selection.

Since men inherently recognize the danger in a reduced demand for their presence, they have little choice but to subconsciously recoil in horror at the prospects of an even more challenging mating arena. It has all the telltale signs of a cognitive illusion. In all probability feminists really do just want equality, but the brain understands it to be a request for something more.


You've tangentially touched on one of my ... disagreements... with the idea of feminism being unquestionably benign for all humans. There seems to be this assumption that since 'men' (not some limited number of older men in positions of authority, but all men) are the unequivocal beneficiaries of all gender imbalance then all we have to do is fix the points where society is failing females and males will be just fine. Applied to NA school systems efforts to make school more aligned with the way girls learn (apparently there are cognitive and developmental differences between the two genders) has lead to increasing failure rates for males even as more females succeed in acquiring the credentials necessary for advanced schooling and/or trades.

This is one example of a flawed approach that will leave societal casualties and may generate male backlash.

In essence I'm suggesting the that efforts to redress inequality have had an unintended consequence of imbalanced entitlement. In addition I think there are minor but notable examples of imbalanced entitlement being exactly the result (intended or not) of attempts to redress inequality. Refusing to acknowledge these consequences does not aid perception that feminists truly desire humanist equality.



67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

animecrystal16 wrote:

How very interesting. The world is not perfect and we are just reaching a nice stability on equality. Both sexes are at fault and both are stubborn either way. Without TRUE feminism, there would be more abuse, more insults and the world would lack intelligence as it is if both did not step back one step and let the other pass. Imagine a female being the pope? That would be quite the story or any high rank in the religion community for that matter. In any case it is disgusting to read, hear or see anything to have to do with people insulting or degrading the other with unnecessary comments such as "Get back in the kitchen!" or "Make me a sandwich" etc etc I'd rather they kept it in their brains because those types jokes are not that funny. Though I agree that everyone and anybody can be sexist if they choose to be and do terrible things to hurt others. Nobody is perfect in this regard even if they try to be.

(ahaha sorry if I'm all over the place but you know what I mean)


The united church of Canada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada ) is the second largest (largest non-catholic) christian denomination in Canada. It has had several female leaders in it's slightly less than hundred years of existence. The Anglicans or Espcipalians have been ordaining women preists for quite some time now and while I have no idea if it's happened yet, I'm sure there's no bar to a woman becoming arch bishop of Canterbury (the anglican 'pope'), The United states has yet to elect a female president but many other nations have or have had female heads of state or heads of government. (My own has had several female Governors General (head of state) and one female prime minister (head of government) ) as for 'True' feminism. please define/clarify?


969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Up on the rooftop...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

karmacide wrote:


Winterfells wrote:


karmacide wrote:

Feminists are all about equal rights until you ask them to mow the lawn! Then they want you to be a man! And I can't even get a sandwich for it! It's a cruel world we live in.


I, for one, find exchanging a sandwich for a mowed lawn to be more than a fair trade.

Although in this gender economy, usually I'll barter:

mowing the lawn + changing the motor oil + taking out the garbage

for

sandwich + 1 beer + sexual favors + 30 minutes to watch ESPN



^- Suggesting that women care about changing the oil.


-
Why yes. Yes they do. Plenty of female engineers, single moms, married women, high school girls, females who care about their cars in good maintenance... etc etc want to learn/already know (and care) how to change the oil, tires, and mow the lawn. I would... personally I don't like to rely on people if I don't have to. I'd love to do the dirty work just so we can move on to something else, like snuggling on the couch.

Posted 8/22/12

animecrystal16 wrote:


karmacide wrote:


Winterfells wrote:


karmacide wrote:

Feminists are all about equal rights until you ask them to mow the lawn! Then they want you to be a man! And I can't even get a sandwich for it! It's a cruel world we live in.


I, for one, find exchanging a sandwich for a mowed lawn to be more than a fair trade.

Although in this gender economy, usually I'll barter:

mowing the lawn + changing the motor oil + taking out the garbage

for

sandwich + 1 beer + sexual favors + 30 minutes to watch ESPN



^- Suggesting that women care about changing the oil.


-
Why yes. Yes they do. Plenty of female engineers, single moms, married women, high school girls, females who care about their cars in good maintenance... etc etc want to learn/already know (and care) how to change the oil, tires, and mow the lawn. I would... personally I don't like to rely on people if I don't have to. I'd love to do the dirty work just so we can move on to something else, like snuggling on the couch.



Do you feel better now?
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

animecrystal16 wrote:


karmacide wrote:


Winterfells wrote:


karmacide wrote:

Feminists are all about equal rights until you ask them to mow the lawn! Then they want you to be a man! And I can't even get a sandwich for it! It's a cruel world we live in.


I, for one, find exchanging a sandwich for a mowed lawn to be more than a fair trade.

Although in this gender economy, usually I'll barter:

mowing the lawn + changing the motor oil + taking out the garbage

for

sandwich + 1 beer + sexual favors + 30 minutes to watch ESPN



^- Suggesting that women care about changing the oil.


-
Why yes. Yes they do. Plenty of female engineers, single moms, married women, high school girls, females who care about their cars in good maintenance... etc etc want to learn/already know (and care) how to change the oil, tires, and mow the lawn. I would... personally I don't like to rely on people if I don't have to. I'd love to do the dirty work just so we can move on to something else, like snuggling on the couch.



So it's actually?

Mow the lawn+garbage


For Change the oil AND sexual favours?


That sounds like an improved deal.

not that I care personally. I live in an apartment for many reasons. and lawn is a minor one but one just the same. If I did have a lawn I'd be tempted to concrete it over and paint it green.
Posted 8/22/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


animecrystal16 wrote:


karmacide wrote:


Winterfells wrote:


karmacide wrote:

Feminists are all about equal rights until you ask them to mow the lawn! Then they want you to be a man! And I can't even get a sandwich for it! It's a cruel world we live in.


I, for one, find exchanging a sandwich for a mowed lawn to be more than a fair trade.

Although in this gender economy, usually I'll barter:

mowing the lawn + changing the motor oil + taking out the garbage

for

sandwich + 1 beer + sexual favors + 30 minutes to watch ESPN



^- Suggesting that women care about changing the oil.


-
Why yes. Yes they do. Plenty of female engineers, single moms, married women, high school girls, females who care about their cars in good maintenance... etc etc want to learn/already know (and care) how to change the oil, tires, and mow the lawn. I would... personally I don't like to rely on people if I don't have to. I'd love to do the dirty work just so we can move on to something else, like snuggling on the couch.



So it's actually?

Mow the lawn+garbage


For Change the oil AND sexual favours?


That sounds like an improved deal.

not that I care personally. I live in an apartment for many reasons. and lawn is a minor one but one just the same. If I did have a lawn I'd be tempted to concrete it over and paint it green.


I love mowing the lawn myself. Something peaceful about it.
969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Up on the rooftop...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12 , edited 8/22/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


animecrystal16 wrote:

How very interesting. The world is not perfect and we are just reaching a nice stability on equality. Both sexes are at fault and both are stubborn either way. Without TRUE feminism, there would be more abuse, more insults and the world would lack intelligence as it is if both did not step back one step and let the other pass. Imagine a female being the pope? That would be quite the story or any high rank in the religion community for that matter. In any case it is disgusting to read, hear or see anything to have to do with people insulting or degrading the other with unnecessary comments such as "Get back in the kitchen!" or "Make me a sandwich" etc etc I'd rather they kept it in their brains because those types jokes are not that funny. Though I agree that everyone and anybody can be sexist if they choose to be and do terrible things to hurt others. Nobody is perfect in this regard even if they try to be.

(ahaha sorry if I'm all over the place but you know what I mean)


The united church of Canada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada ) is the second largest (largest non-catholic) christian denomination in Canada. It has had several female leaders in it's slightly less than hundred years of existence. The Anglicans or Espcipalians have been ordaining women priests for quite some time now and while I have no idea if it's happened yet, I'm sure there's no bar to a woman becoming arch bishop of Canterbury (the anglican 'pope'), The United states has yet to elect a female president but many other nations have or have had female heads of state or heads of government. (My own has had several female Governors General (head of state) and one female prime minister (head of government) ) as for 'True' feminism. please define/clarify?




Feminist: a person who advocates equal rights for women. Only that and not the movement.

Like:
Susan B. Anthony
She lectured on women's rights and organized a series of state and national conventions on the issue. She collected signatures for a petition to grant women the right to vote and to own property. During the Civil War, she worked toward the emancipation of the slaves.

Not the stuff that people are hating on. The genuine thing and not some of the ugly stuff we see. The things that actually made the world progress better for woman. EDIT: AND MEN.

67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

animecrystal16 wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


animecrystal16 wrote:

How very interesting. The world is not perfect and we are just reaching a nice stability on equality. Both sexes are at fault and both are stubborn either way. Without TRUE feminism, there would be more abuse, more insults and the world would lack intelligence as it is if both did not step back one step and let the other pass. Imagine a female being the pope? That would be quite the story or any high rank in the religion community for that matter. In any case it is disgusting to read, hear or see anything to have to do with people insulting or degrading the other with unnecessary comments such as "Get back in the kitchen!" or "Make me a sandwich" etc etc I'd rather they kept it in their brains because those types jokes are not that funny. Though I agree that everyone and anybody can be sexist if they choose to be and do terrible things to hurt others. Nobody is perfect in this regard even if they try to be.

(ahaha sorry if I'm all over the place but you know what I mean)


The united church of Canada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada ) is the second largest (largest non-catholic) christian denomination in Canada. It has had several female leaders in it's slightly less than hundred years of existence. The Anglicans or Espcipalians have been ordaining women priests for quite some time now and while I have no idea if it's happened yet, I'm sure there's no bar to a woman becoming arch bishop of Canterbury (the anglican 'pope'), The United states has yet to elect a female president but many other nations have or have had female heads of state or heads of government. (My own has had several female Governors General (head of state) and one female prime minister (head of government) ) as for 'True' feminism. please define/clarify?




Feminist: a person who advocates equal rights for women. Only that and not the movement.

Like:
Susan B. Anthony
She lectured on women's rights and organized a series of state and national conventions on the issue. She collected signatures for a petition to grant women the right to vote and to own property. During the Civil War, she worked toward the emancipation of the slaves.

Not the stuff that people are hating on. The genuine thing and not some of the ugly stuff we see. The things that actually made the world progress better for woman. EDIT: AND MEN.


(emphasis mine)

Of course some of the champions of votes for women (perhaps not Anthony herself) were only seeking votes for white women.

The fact that you had to put 'and men' as after thought illustrates my point nicely. Feminism fights first and foremost for redress of what feminists believe to be inequalities that hurt women. The remaining chips (especially the male ones) are left to fall where they lie. The best of them assume what is good for women is good for all humans, while many of the rest just don't care. At least that's how I see the pragmatic results of many feminist initiatives, Good intentions, an injustice that Does indeed need correction but sometimes the end result for the whole is NOT greater equality but an imbalanced entitlement. Said entitlement something that the best of the feminists seem blind to and the worst consider fair retribution.

Like I have said in previous posts, my own stance as a humanist, leads me to recognize the justice of many feminist initiatives and consider my self an ally of their cause on a case by case basis. However, I do not consider feminism to be an unequivocal good for all humanity at all times. and feel obliged to make my lonely voice of occasional dissent is heard.





Posted 8/22/12
It is bad but they are teens
13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/22/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


AshRandom wrote:

It seems feminists are being asked to defend themselves against the accusation that their real attitude is not one which demands equality, but one which seeks imbalanced entitlement.

I can't help but analyze this two ways, but skipping the reductionist argument, it's likely this accusatory viewpoint evolved entirely as a result of men interpreting the situation through the lens of sexual-selection.

Since men inherently recognize the danger in a reduced demand for their presence, they have little choice but to subconsciously recoil in horror at the prospects of an even more challenging mating arena. It has all the telltale signs of a cognitive illusion. In all probability feminists really do just want equality, but the brain understands it to be a request for something more.


You've tangentially touched on one of my ... disagreements... with the idea of feminism being unquestionably benign for all humans. There seems to be this assumption that since 'men' (not some limited number of older men in positions of authority, but all men) are the unequivocal beneficiaries of all gender imbalance then all we have to do is fix the points where society is failing females and males will be just fine. Applied to NA school systems efforts to make school more aligned with the way girls learn (apparently there are cognitive and developmental differences between the two genders) has lead to increasing failure rates for males even as more females succeed in acquiring the credentials necessary for advanced schooling and/or trades.

This is one example of a flawed approach that will leave societal casualties and may generate male backlash.

In essence I'm suggesting the that efforts to redress inequality have had an unintended consequence of imbalanced entitlement. In addition I think there are minor but notable examples of imbalanced entitlement being exactly the result (intended or not) of attempts to redress inequality. Refusing to acknowledge these consequences does not aid perception that feminists truly desire humanist equality.


It should probably be pointed out that regardless of the asserted, potential, perceived, or imaginary negative consequences -- there is no other ethical position one can hold on the issue of equality without being guilty of personal bias. We must be for equality. And we are for equality based on the merits of equality (as it needs no other foundation).

That said... I think pragmatic solutions in the form of fleshy robots are due to arrive long before mankind's role reversal takes full effect. Women's challenge in overcoming ten thousand years of dogmatic social stigmas is monumental. And considering the current level of technology in Honda's Asimo robot, making headway towards perfecting a line of robot-wives programmed to cook, clean and give handjobs at 5000 rpm will be comparatively easy, with the surplus benefit of being profitable.

The big relationship questions for women of the future might be outlandish compared to modern thinking. Instead of today's magazine blurbs which read: "How do I find Mr. Right?" we might see ones like: "How can I get any man on earth to actually give me the time of day?"

Imagine the robot-wife-future. Imagine a world where regular women look nothing like our supermodel robot wives. Imagine a world where men actually start dating women platonically, for their companionship value alone. Imagine a world where women are, for the first time, and as requested, valued for their minds and valued for their personalities. Instead of natural and surgical beauty acting as the prime motivator, a charming disposition and a knack for humor might start to become a female necessity.

Don't fight the future. xD
8802 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 8/22/12


You make some good points, but I'll be honest. The part that stood out to me was the "giving handjobs at 5000 rpm" part. XD
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/23/12 , edited 8/23/12

AshRandom wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


AshRandom wrote:

It seems feminists are being asked to defend themselves against the accusation that their real attitude is not one which demands equality, but one which seeks imbalanced entitlement.

I can't help but analyze this two ways, but skipping the reductionist argument, it's likely this accusatory viewpoint evolved entirely as a result of men interpreting the situation through the lens of sexual-selection.

Since men inherently recognize the danger in a reduced demand for their presence, they have little choice but to subconsciously recoil in horror at the prospects of an even more challenging mating arena. It has all the telltale signs of a cognitive illusion. In all probability feminists really do just want equality, but the brain understands it to be a request for something more.


You've tangentially touched on one of my ... disagreements... with the idea of feminism being unquestionably benign for all humans. There seems to be this assumption that since 'men' (not some limited number of older men in positions of authority, but all men) are the unequivocal beneficiaries of all gender imbalance then all we have to do is fix the points where society is failing females and males will be just fine. Applied to NA school systems efforts to make school more aligned with the way girls learn (apparently there are cognitive and developmental differences between the two genders) has lead to increasing failure rates for males even as more females succeed in acquiring the credentials necessary for advanced schooling and/or trades.

This is one example of a flawed approach that will leave societal casualties and may generate male backlash.

In essence I'm suggesting the that efforts to redress inequality have had an unintended consequence of imbalanced entitlement. In addition I think there are minor but notable examples of imbalanced entitlement being exactly the result (intended or not) of attempts to redress inequality. Refusing to acknowledge these consequences does not aid perception that feminists truly desire humanist equality.


It should probably be pointed out that regardless of the asserted, potential, perceived, or imaginary negative consequences -- there is no other ethical position one can hold on the issue of equality without being guilty of personal bias. We must be for equality. And we are for equality based on the merits of equality (as it needs no other foundation).

That said... I think pragmatic solutions in the form of fleshy robots are due to arrive long before mankind's role reversal takes full effect. Women's challenge in overcoming ten thousand years of dogmatic social stigmas is monumental. And considering the current level of technology in Honda's Asimo robot, making headway towards perfecting a line of robot-wives programmed to cook, clean and give handjobs at 5000 rpm will be comparatively easy, with the surplus benefit of being profitable.

The big relationship questions for women of the future might be outlandish compared to modern thinking. Instead of today's magazine blurbs which read: "How do I find Mr. Right?" we might see ones like: "How can I get any man on earth to actually give me the time of day?"

Imagine the robot-wife-future. Imagine a world where regular women look nothing like our supermodel robot wives. Imagine a world where men actually start dating women platonically, for their companionship value alone. Imagine a world where women are, for the first time, and as requested, valued for their minds and valued for their personalities. Instead of natural and surgical beauty acting as the prime motivator, a charming disposition and a knack for humor might start to become a female necessity.

Don't fight the future. xD


I'm going to defy male stereotyping and say that the future you are describing leaves me uninterested. really and truly. I don't need Nor particularly desire a human nor a robot to do anything the things you imply that all men desire. so.. Meh.

as for platonic relations with women I'd be happy to have those. haven't had any applicants lately.

13566 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / New York
Offline
Posted 8/23/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I'm going to defy male stereotyping and say that the future you are describing leaves me uninterested. really and truly. I don't need Nor particularly desire a human nor a robot to do anything the things you imply that all men desire. so.. Meh.

as for platonic relations with women I'd be happy to have those. haven't had any applicants lately.


Well good. Relationships based on emotions (aside from lust) are the only important part of the future I described.

I'd like to know what it's like honestly. I've tried to find one, but I've never been in a relationship where I didn't want her for her body, or she for mine. So many factors which normally account for love are all based on physicality instead of intellectual compatibility. It would be a trip to experience a world where minds are free to fall in love for any reason independent of the urgings of our respective genitalia.
7431 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 8/23/12

AshRandom wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I'm going to defy male stereotyping and say that the future you are describing leaves me uninterested. really and truly. I don't need Nor particularly desire a human nor a robot to do anything the things you imply that all men desire. so.. Meh.

as for platonic relations with women I'd be happy to have those. haven't had any applicants lately.


Well good. Relationships based on emotions (aside from lust) are the only important part of the future I described.

I'd like to know what it's like honestly. I've tried to find one, but I've never been in a relationship where I didn't want her for her body, or she for mine. So many factors which normally account for love are all based on physicality instead of intellectual compatibility. It would be a trip to experience a world where minds are free to fall in love for any reason independent of the urgings of our respective genitalia.


A world like that could never exist because whatever drives our desire for intellectual stimulation is no match for what drives our desire for sexual stimulation. I've had guy friends and I've had girl friends and I can assure you that despite the fact that we were platonic as saints there has always been an element of physical attraction and sexual tension from at least one if not both parties in the friendship, regardless of gender. Sure physical attraction will mater less as we grow older and our reproductive parts shirvil and die but until then the need to sweep the masses and procreate like rabbits will ravage your subconscious and relationships will be based on attraction. Sex whether it's having sex, masturbating, or just thinking about sex will take up some portion of your time everyday and there will be some level of attraction in all your friendships even if you aren't aware of it.
67737 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/23/12

AshRandom wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I'm going to defy male stereotyping and say that the future you are describing leaves me uninterested. really and truly. I don't need Nor particularly desire a human nor a robot to do anything the things you imply that all men desire. so.. Meh.

as for platonic relations with women I'd be happy to have those. haven't had any applicants lately.


Well good. Relationships based on emotions (aside from lust) are the only important part of the future I described.

I'd like to know what it's like honestly. I've tried to find one, but I've never been in a relationship where I didn't want her for her body, or she for mine. So many factors which normally account for love are all based on physicality instead of intellectual compatibility. It would be a trip to experience a world where minds are free to fall in love for any reason independent of the urgings of our respective genitalia.


well I'm not saying good old lust doesn't have it's place, I'm just saying.... hmmm... The future you describe wouldn't be interesting to me until we have dowloadable minds and then I could live forever young in a supermodel hard body with incredible sex appeal. I supposed I wouldn't even mind doing some dishes and cooking then.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.