First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Gender Stereotypes
Orbxck 
23054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Earth
Offline
Posted 9/7/12
Personally, I would agree with that. I'm straight but kissing is romantic.
In my opinion.
67076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / US
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

lorddisick wrote:

What's a world without stereotypes?


A very boring one; comedians and comedy shows/movies are going to have to find other things to make fun of. Also most of the internet memes would probably disappear.
62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12
I'm all for equal rights and equal opportunities. If two people are applying for the same job, then the better qualified person should get it. Regardless of what their gender is. But the sad fact of the matter is, women only want to be "equal" when it's convenient for them. My sister is a loud (and obnoxious) voice for women's equality. Except when the time comes to move a couch, then all of a sudden she's a lady. "Let the men handle that"

Two men put their fists up and start punching each other in the face, well that's a fight. A man punches his wife in the face after taking a few swings from her first, well then it's "OMGWTFBBQ!! He hit a woman!! He's a woman beating piece of shit!!" Now don't get me wrong, by no means am I saying it's acceptable for a man to hit a woman. The reason for that is, I understand that men and women are simply not created equally. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Plain and simple.

That's not to say that a woman who does heavy lifting all the time, strength training, or is just a behemoth can't be stronger than an average man. But you take that same strong woman and put her next a strong man, and once again the difference is clear. Now don't get confused here, I am not saying that men are better. Just stronger. And that's a fact
Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

RapeMonster wrote:

You're not really asking that question are you? In the old hunter and gather days men were stronger and can beat the crap out of women, which one reason men are seen as more "superior" and women, weak. They bring the meat home and women brought grapes and twigs. Men ruled countries, men conquered, scientific discovery were mainly by men. The only female figures I know is Ada Lovelace and Queen Elizabeth...I I


Yeah, the problem with that belief comes from the fact that not all men are nor will they ever be stronger and able to "beat the crap out of women" - so thanks for basing the entirety of your post on yet another stereotype. This I have witnessed with my own eyes. And I love how you assume that having physical strength would mean you were stronger overall. So basically if someone shot your beliefs straight to hell, you could totally feel better by socking them in the face and calling it a day, never mind the fact that when you're alone in a room by yourself, you have nothing because they DID take that away from you. Put a woman who thinks more than she acts in one room, and a man who relies on brute strength in another - we'll see who comes out on top after 2 weeks of being stuck in said situation.

I can't tell if most women and men are yielding to stereotypes or whether the differences that separate us are real differences in the first place. It's very hard to answer your question when so many people live the lives the media feeds them never questioning why they're doing so in the first place.


swordstyle wrote:

I'm all for equal rights and equal opportunities. If two people are applying for the same job, then the better qualified person should get it. Regardless of what their gender is. But the sad fact of the matter is, women only want to be "equal" when it's convenient for them. My sister is a loud (and obnoxious) voice for women's equality. Except when the time comes to move a couch, then all of a sudden she's a lady. "Let the men handle that"


If you were truthfully for equality, would you really be saying women in general only want to be equal when it works for them? Honestly, not everyone is that ignorant, and even though "I'm a woman," I ask myself constantly if I AM doing that so as to avoid it. Do you see how that could be offensive? Because I do. And I doubt believing ANOTHER stereotype would get you anything but trouble - with yourself or with anyone else.
62143 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Bonne Lake, WA
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

swordstyle wrote:

I'm all for equal rights and equal opportunities. If two people are applying for the same job, then the better qualified person should get it. Regardless of what their gender is. But the sad fact of the matter is, women only want to be "equal" when it's convenient for them. My sister is a loud (and obnoxious) voice for women's equality. Except when the time comes to move a couch, then all of a sudden she's a lady. "Let the men handle that"

Two men put their fists up and start punching each other in the face, well that's a fight. A man punches his wife in the face after taking a few swings from her first, well then it's "OMGWTFBBQ!! He hit a woman!! He's a woman beating piece of shit!!" Now don't get me wrong, by no means am I saying it's acceptable for a man to hit a woman. The reason for that is, I understand that men and women are simply not created equally. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Plain and simple.

That's not to say that a woman who does heavy lifting all the time, strength training, or is just a behemoth can't be stronger than an average man. But you take that same strong woman and put her next a strong man, and once again the difference is clear. Now don't get confused here, I am not saying that men are better. Just stronger. And that's a fact



I wouldn't use a general term like stronger. That opens up your argument for pointless counter arguments that are moot point in the real meaning of your sentences, which is that a man will have greater muscle mass or exert more physical force than a women when the two put in equal effort to training etc, at least on average.
62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

tia-dalma wrote:
If you were truthfully for equality, would you really be saying women in general only want to be equal when it works for them? Honestly, not everyone is that ignorant, and even though "I'm a woman," I ask myself constantly if I AM doing that so as to avoid it. Do you see how that could be offensive? Because I do. And I doubt believing ANOTHER stereotype would get you anything but trouble - with yourself or with anyone else.
I am for equality. And I don't really care who considers my view offensive. A woman deserves the same rights and privileges as any man in modern society. There is no scientific basis to suggest that women are less intelligent than men. There is however a scientific basis which proves the average woman has less physical strength than the average man. I've lived a long time in a lot of places and met a lot of people. I've never met a woman who won't play the "I'm a lady" card when it suits her. That's not to say such a woman doesn't exist. It's possible, I suppose. But when someone refers to a gender as a whole, they are obviously speaking in a broader sense concerning the majority. Not stand out individuals. That's really just pretty obvious common sense.

Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

swordstyle wrote:


tia-dalma wrote:
If you were truthfully for equality, would you really be saying women in general only want to be equal when it works for them? Honestly, not everyone is that ignorant, and even though "I'm a woman," I ask myself constantly if I AM doing that so as to avoid it. Do you see how that could be offensive? Because I do. And I doubt believing ANOTHER stereotype would get you anything but trouble - with yourself or with anyone else.
I am for equality. And I don't really care who considers my view offensive. A woman deserves the same rights and privileges as any man in modern society. There is no scientific basis to suggest that women are less intelligent than men. There is however a scientific basis which proves the average woman has less physical strength than the average man. I've lived a long time in a lot of places and met a lot of people. I've never met a woman who won't play the "I'm a lady" card when it suits her. That's not to say such a woman doesn't exist. It's possible, I suppose. But when someone refers to a gender as a whole, they are obviously speaking in a broader sense concerning the majority. Not stand out individuals. That's really just pretty obvious common sense.



Obviously, there's a huge difference between the majority and all people, no matter how many times someone uses it - obviously, that's one of the biggest reasons if not the ONLY reason a stereotype is fucked up in the first place. If you really want equality, I suggest not ignoring the minority in such a way. Don't you think THAT should be obvious as well?

And I'm not touching on strength because I already have.


62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

tia-dalma wrote:


Obviously, there's a huge difference between the majority and all people, no matter how many times someone uses it - obviously, that's one of the biggest reasons if not the ONLY reason a stereotype is fucked up in the first place. If you really want equality, I suggest not ignoring the minority in such a way. Don't you think THAT should be obvious as well?

And I'm not touching on strength because I already have.


Um, no. Every individual simply can not be accounted for in every situation. Is it fair? No. Decisions and beliefs are made based on the majority. Welcome to life. And I haven't read any of your earlier posts, nor do I intend to. Nothing personal.

Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

swordstyle wrote:


tia-dalma wrote:


Obviously, there's a huge difference between the majority and all people, no matter how many times someone uses it - obviously, that's one of the biggest reasons if not the ONLY reason a stereotype is fucked up in the first place. If you really want equality, I suggest not ignoring the minority in such a way. Don't you think THAT should be obvious as well?

And I'm not touching on strength because I already have.


Um, no. Every individual simply can not be accounted for in every situation. Is it fair? No. Decisions and beliefs are made based on the majority. Welcome to life. And I haven't read any of your earlier posts, nor do I intend to. Nothing personal.



No one said you had to account for them, but I did say they shouldn't be ignored. And if you want to talk about what LIFE is, you can come to terms with the fact that ignoring someone's existence means excluding their life altogether - what's realistic about that?

And that's fine. I just thought I shouldn't generalize and consider the DETAILS of what you were saying, thus I replied to those as well.

55135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 9/7/12
Equal but very different would be the best way to say it. There are plenty off jobs male do better than a female and females can do jobs that men can not do as well. I am against lowering standards just to accommodate females though. Fire fighters having to pick up at lest 80 Lbs and now it down to 40 Lbs.
62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

tia-dalma wrote:

No one said you had to account for them, but I did say they shouldn't be ignored. And if you want to talk about what LIFE is, you can come to terms with the fact that ignoring someone's existence means excluding their life altogether - what's realistic about that?

And that's fine. I just thought I shouldn't generalize and consider the DETAILS of what you were saying, thus I replied to those as well.


lol Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but by not being accounted for, by definition they are being ignored. I know, contradicting yourself sucks. Anyway, being a drama queen and drastically exaggerating doesn't help your position in the least. Ignoring someone's existence? Excluding their life altogether? Are you listening to yourself?

A hobo walked up to me the other day reeking of booze and asked me for money. I just kept walking. Yes, I ignored him. That doesn't mean if he was standing in front of my car I would have driven over him because I was ignoring his existence. The vast majority of women will pull the "lady card" whenever it suits them. Are there some die hard equality nuts who would refuse to do so for their principles? Probably. But their percentage is so small, I'm not including them in this discussion. And no, I wouldn't drive over them either.
Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

swordstyle wrote:


tia-dalma wrote:

No one said you had to account for them, but I did say they shouldn't be ignored. And if you want to talk about what LIFE is, you can come to terms with the fact that ignoring someone's existence means excluding their life altogether - what's realistic about that?

And that's fine. I just thought I shouldn't generalize and consider the DETAILS of what you were saying, thus I replied to those as well.


lol Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but by not being accounted for, by definition they are being ignored. I know, contradicting yourself sucks. Anyway, being a drama queen and drastically exaggerating doesn't help your position in the least. Ignoring someone's existence? Excluding their life altogether? Are you listening to yourself?

A hobo walked up to me the other day reeking of booze and asked me for money. I just kept walking. Yes, I ignored him. That doesn't mean if he was standing in front of my car I would have driven over him because I was ignoring his existence. The vast majority of women will pull the "lady card" whenever it suits them. Are there some die hard equality nuts who would refuse to do so for their principles? Probably. But their percentage is so small, I'm not including them in this discussion. And no, I wouldn't drive over them either.


Your problem is that you refuse to think beyond what you've already done. You mentioned one and not the other, so you ignored them - and yet, if you simply hadn't spoken as if the majority stood for ALL, you wouldn't have ignored or have had to account for anyone. Please explain to me how what I said you were doing differs from what you were doing. Then you can REALLY decide whether I was exaggerating or not.
62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

tia-dalma wrote:
Your problem is that you refuse to think beyond what you've already done. You mentioned one and not the other, so you ignored them - and yet, if you simply hadn't spoken as if the majority stood for ALL, you wouldn't have ignored or have had to account for anyone. Please explain to me how what I said you were doing differs from what you were doing. Then you can REALLY decide whether I was exaggerating or not.
Because common sense dictates that no one can speak for every individual in anything. I suppose it was my mistake for assuming the fact that I was referring to the majority would be plainly obvious. And what "you said I was doing differs from what I was doing" because I never denied any such person exists. Which you never should have assumed I did, considering you proclaimed yourself to be such a person in the first post of mine you quoted. So instead of jumping to conclusions, you should asked me to clarify. I would have been happy to do so. That said, I have made my decision. You were exaggerating. Drastically.

Posted 9/7/12 , edited 9/7/12

swordstyle wrote:


tia-dalma wrote:
Your problem is that you refuse to think beyond what you've already done. You mentioned one and not the other, so you ignored them - and yet, if you simply hadn't spoken as if the majority stood for ALL, you wouldn't have ignored or have had to account for anyone. Please explain to me how what I said you were doing differs from what you were doing. Then you can REALLY decide whether I was exaggerating or not.

Because common sense dictates that no one can speak for every individual in anything. I suppose it was my mistake for assuming the fact that I was referring to the majority would be plainly obvious. And what "you said I was doing differs from what I was doing" because I never denied any such person exists. Which you never should have assumed I did, considering you proclaimed yourself to be such a person in the first post of mine you quoted. So instead of jumping to conclusions, you should asked me to clarify. I would have been happy to do so. That said, I have made my decision. You were exaggerating. Drastically.



And, again, no one asked you to do that. And you don't have to deny it - you excluded them when you generalized the way you did. The thing is, I understand perfectly well that people generalize the majority and state it as though they stand for all - I know what they're doing. I'M saying it's not right because, again, that is how stereotypes are made.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify something you blatantly said. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way you phrased it - something you already said was a mistake, so why even bother defending it now and making it seem like I WAS exaggerating? You were the one who said exactly what I thought you did in the first place.

62873 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Orlando
Offline
Posted 9/7/12

tia-dalma wrote:


And, again, no one asked you to do that. And you don't have to deny it - you excluded them when you generalized the way you did. The thing is, I understand perfectly well that people generalize the majority and state it as though they stand for all - I know what they're doing. I'M saying it's not right because, again, that is how stereotypes are made.

I'm not going to ask you to clarify something you blatantly said. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's the way you phrased it - something you already said was a mistake, so why even bother defending it now and making it seem like I WAS exaggerating? You were the one who said exactly what I thought you did in the first place.

lol Really? Let me get this straight. You knew what I was saying from the start, but you chose to take it out of context and blow it out of proportion because you didn't like how I worded it? And more bad news for you, stereotypes are made because there is truth to them. Not because people word statements improperly. And even the most incompetent of fools knows that stereotypes aren't ironclad guides to a gender, race, or religion. If someone uses a stereotype against you, that's just because it's a convenient weapon. Not because you fall in to a category and therefore comply with said stereotype. And if you get upset by the use of said stereotype, well then you just justified its use. And by the way, after talking about "denying someone's existence" and "excluding their LIFE" why even bother defending it now and making it seem like you WEREN'T exaggerating?

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.