Sexism: How Far Should is Too Far?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with what I said? You stated that one of the commonly accepted traits associated with being a woman, is being mindlessly subservient to men. My point was that, based upon my own admittedly limited observations and experience, not enough men, in this day and age, actually think that, in order for it to be considered a widely accepted enough fact to be apart of the "typical female" trait.

Being in a positions of power (ie not subservient) voids any claim to being "girly" because part of what it implies is that one is not a leader. It's built into the English language, even if people don't consciously think that women are/should be in a servant position.

I don't think the modern day definition of "girly" includes "can not lead", or "is not aggressive".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with what I said? You stated that one of the commonly accepted traits associated with being a woman, is being mindlessly subservient to men. My point was that, based upon my own admittedly limited observations and experience, not enough men, in this day and age, actually think that, in order for it to be considered a "generally accepted" aspect of the female persona.

its the implicit way society makes us assume different things about women and men, not necessarily in explicit beliefs.

Sure, most men wont say that a woman has less authority than a man, but when tested, they certainly behave in that way. Most women will as well.

You think that the average man is likely to stand up to a woman on the grounds that she's a woman, at least subconciously?

a man will rank a woman as being less powerful or will respect a woman's position of authority less than that of a man. So will a woman, for that matter.

mm. I'd agree with that, to an extent. I don't think that holds true for all situations though.

well, no, nothing does. but it's like, a male soldier or cop, you would (or at least are statistically likely) to regard with more deference than a female, because we have cultural expectations of what it means to be male/female/cop/soldier

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
By the by, is it just me or is the title to this messed up?

It is not, I assume he initially wanted to call the thread "How far should be too far" but then decided to call it "How far is too far" and the "should" stayed. Or the other way around, though less likely, perhaps.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
mm. I'd agree with that, to an extent. I don't think that holds true for all situations though.

It doesn't have to hold for everyone for it to be common enough to be problematic.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Girly girl means this:

"soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc."

I thought "girly girl" was used to describe girls who like "girly" things or behave in a "girly" way.
Liking the colour pink, dresses, make-up.. Likes to gossip or is "bitchy", is weak, doesn't like to get dirty, likes shopping..
Stereotypical "girl" things.

I mean someone who had the traits you described could still be a "tomboy". It's not like people choose whether or not to have curves, smooth hands and full lips mmm

Originally posted by inimalist
well, no, nothing does. but it's like, a male soldier or cop, you would (or at least are statistically likely) to regard with more deference than a female, because we have cultural expectations of what it means to be male/female/cop/soldier

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yah, and that's what I'm referring to when I say it depends on the situation. I think it depends on how "male-centric" or "female-centric" the environment is.

ya, exactly, and it works the other way too. iirc we tend to see female teachers as more "suitable" for the role than males

the thing is, the roles we see males as being better at are those that hold real power in society. We see bosses, and politicians and other power brokers as inherently positions of "maleness", whereas female jobs tend to be those of a domestic nature.

Look, I get that women can find their own expression through those roles, or can gain personal value through the authority that gain from the domains we ascribe to them, but for those who desire more than those roles, or especially in terms of how we set girls up to want different things than men, society in general certainly doesn't see them as being "equal" in terms of "powerful roles"

tangentially on topic.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/hard-core/8327/

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, exactly, and it works the other way too. iirc we tend to see female teachers as more "suitable" for the role than males

the thing is, the roles we see males as being better at are those that hold real power in society. We see bosses, and politicians and other power brokers as inherently positions of "maleness", whereas female jobs tend to be those of a domestic nature.

Look, I get that women can find their own expression through those roles, or can gain personal value through the authority that gain from the domains we ascribe to them, but for those who desire more than those roles, or especially in terms of how we set girls up to want different things than men, society in general certainly doesn't see them as being "equal" in terms of "powerful roles"

I agree with you on all of that. My issue with feminism has to do with what I see is the more "radical" form of it. Like, an example of radical feminism, imo, is being offended by a statement like "you fight like a woman", or "you cry like a woman". People see those as insults to women, I think that type of thinking is unnecessarily empathetic.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I agree with you on all of that. My issue with feminism has to do with what I see is the more "radical" form of it. Like, an example of radical feminism, imo, is being offended by a statement like "you fight like a woman", or "you cry like a woman". People see those as insults to women, I think that type of thinking is unnecessarily empathetic.

It is however an insult to women. Perhaps not intended, and perhaps not particularly harmful, but surely something one could avoid, no?

In fact, the power the insult has comes from the lower regard for women and stereotypes associated with them. It's stupid, too, there's a lot of men who can't fight for shit, and there's women who could whoop everyone here's asses (as dadudemon pointed out about 3 years ago)

Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]It is however an insult to women. Perhaps not intended, and perhaps not particularly harmful, but surely something one could avoid, no?

Not really, imo, because anything can be an insult to anyone. I don't see a statement like "You fight like a woman", as an insult to women, so much as a type of social commentary on how women typically are. Women are generally physically weaker, more fragile, have less reach, and are lighter, which altogether means that a woman is generally not as affective at fighting as a man would be. Ergo, if I'm fighting with someone and they say "you fight like a woman", it's more of an insult to me, really, because what he's saying is that the way that I'm displaying qualities that are commonly shown by women (that quality being ineffective in a fight)

In fact, the power the insult has comes from the lower regard for women and stereotypes associated with them. It's stupid, too, there's a lot of men who can't fight for shit, and there's women who could whoop everyone here's asses (as dadudemon pointed out about 3 years ago)

I would argue that if you took a man who has no idea how to fight, and you take a woman who has no idea how to fight, the man will win the majority of the time.

Are you offended by the fact that the large majority of the time, regardless of who starts the fight, if the police are called in for a domestic dispute, it is the man who they will arrest?

I think we should strive for gender neutrality in all things. Leave no stone unturned if there's a societal divide we can root out.

Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal. There are some things that men have an inherent advantage in due to physical or chemical differences, and vice versa for women.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Are you offended by the fact that the large majority of the time, regardless of who starts the fight, if the police are called in for a domestic dispute, it is the man who they will arrest?

Yes, that's very offensive.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Personally, I think that women should have the opportunity to do anything that a man can do. However, I don't think men and women are equal. There are some things that men have an inherent advantage in due to physical or chemical differences, and vice versa for women.