Sexism: How Far Should is Too Far?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure, but that's no excuse for the vast majority of sexist divisions that exist now. There are lots of things we attribute to biology that are also highly social; for instance the idea that women desire deeper emotional connections in sex than men. There may be some research supporting this, but it is a far greater divide in the US than in many other countries which makes me think that this is mainly a cultural effect.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, that's very offensive.

Offensive to you, or to women?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, Psychology is tricky like that, that's why when talking to Bardock I refrained from getting into the psychological aspect of things, physical differences are easier to quantify. Psychological/sociological studies have too many variables.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Offensive to you, or to women?

To men. To equality. To humanity.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Psychological/sociological differences are what defines sexism. You can't do much about biological differences, all feminist movements are directed at fixing the sociological ones.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.

You can't do much about biological differences, all feminist movements are directed at fixing the sociological ones.

Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?

Originally posted by Bardock42
To men. To equality. To humanity.

edit

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?

Then nothing. It's about individuals. Studying the average differences is interesting for scientific pursuit, basing laws on it though is wrong. Again, individuals are what's important.

Say what if it came out (as some claim) that blacks are less intelligent than whites. What then?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Offensive to you, or to women?

I'd say it's offensive to everybody but more serious for men.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then nothing. It's about individuals. Studying the average differences is interesting for scientific pursuit, basing laws on it though is wrong. Again, individuals are what's important.

Say what if it came out (as some claim) that blacks are less intelligent than whites. What then?

Similarly, in Oakland, gang members are more likely to kill other gang members then non-gang members. Therefore, I can understand why police tend to scrutinize gang members more than non-gang members. If I don't want to be harassed by police, I won't engage myself gang member type activities.

You're talking about stereotypes, basically. Is stereotyping wrong? I.. guess. you know. whatever. It's something that everyone engages in, regardless of how open minded or progressive or whatever they think they are.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
But feminists complain about the biological differences. Specifically, it's the stating that there is a biological difference that is the problem.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Can't really be fixed until we know for sure. If it turns that are women are on average more emotionally than men are, for example, then what?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
But feminists complain about the biological differences. Specifically, it's the stating that there is a biological difference that is the problem.

It's like, we all know that a man is, generally, physically stronger than a woman is. But if I were to state that I would rather have a random guy by my side than a woman in a brawl, that could be taken as an insult.

who though? this seems like a real straw man argument...

even radical feminists wouldn't suggest that women are, just naturally, as strong as men

also, this (I can name a couple others) is one of the only things that is really different, on a biological level, between men and women, and is probably the most significant. Even then, in practice it makes little difference. Female firefighters and constructions workers are still able to do their jobs effectively, and while there might be issues with female cops drawing their guns too early, for the majority of the time, they are just as capable as men at being cops and soldiers.

The differences that do exist certainly don't extend into the domains of real power, so the fact that women are held in a lower regard in these instances has nothing to do with biology.

Originally posted by King Kandy
[B]I don't know what feminists literally deny their are biological differences between men and women. One has a penis and one has a vagina. There are biological differences and I think you are basing this more on your caricature of a feminist than any actual feminist theory.

I guess. -shrug-

That's why you need to prove something before you base your laws and society off of it. We should seek to remove all socially derived gender differences; if it turns out that something is biological, then we can't remove it. This isn't that hard. We know that much of the poor test scores among blacks compared to whites is a result of socio-economic factors, is it really unthinkable to you that many male-female divisions might likewise be so?

I just said this.

who though? this seems like a real straw man argument...

Could you summarize my argument in your own words, if I asked you to? I'm kind of curious to see what you guys think I am actually saying.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Could you summarize my argument in your own words, if I asked you to? I'm kind of curious to see what you guys think I am actually saying.

on that point in particular, it seems like you were saying feminists (or some of them) want to deny, or take issue with, natural biological differences between men and women. I hadn't heard this before, and it sounds suspiscious.

I only posted anything else to sort of back up stuff I had said that I believe you agreed with...(?)

Fair enough. That's not exactly what I was trying to say, but, I could definitely see how you were led to that conclusion. my fault

fair enough man, totally not trying to troll or anything

Holy sh*t. There's so many things wrong with this post...

Originally posted by Peach
Um, no. No one has ever claimed to be the same. The whole point of the feminist movement is that women are equal to men, and as such deserve the same freedom of choice and rights that men enjoy without even thinking about it. Same =/= equal.

Women and men, in the general sense, are NOT equal to men. Or did you miss that portion in my post?

We are different. As fact, we are a sexually asymmetric species.

The second portion of your point is completely irrelevant and is a strawman: not once did I ever say anything about rights, choices, or freedoms needing to be unequal.

Originally posted by Peach
The two are not mutually exclusive. At all.

..As though this point acts as some sort of contradiction to what I said?

And, yes, being subservient and submissive is quite explicitly contradictory to being intelligent and social. Are you trying to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory?

Originally posted by Peach
Stop acting like you know anything about feminism and sexism when you spout the crap you do.

Great, a personal attack. facepalm

Well, so far, you've not done a very good job of pretending that what I stated was a cluster****, but done very little to prove as such.

And, if you'd spend more time researching feminism, you'd know more about it and realize that "feministic driven witch hunting" is a problem that actually hurts the feminist supporters and movement: it's one of the criticisms of the handful of feminists who "ruin it for everyone." It hurts logical and educated feminists' positions of social leverage due to the mistakes of the few.

Originally posted by Peach
Or at least acknowledge the fact that most of what you say and believe is less biological and more due to societal pressures.

Incorrect. I've even created a thread over this that talks about JUST that: those biological aspects of what sexual attraction entails and those traits are specifically outlined. Did you think I chose those traits on accident because of my preconceived sexist notions of what represents the sexes (obviously, that’s exactly what you think)? Why do you think Bardock42 didn't contradict those? Your response is probably one of the worst possible counter-arguments to what I've stated as it personifies the very "demons" of feminists that I mentioned: closed minded witch-hunting.

If you actually knew me instead of pretending to psycho-analyze me, you'd know that I'm actually a bit of a feminist, myself. 😐

You should acknowledge the fact that there is quite a large amount of biological reasons for sexual attraction and my commentary is almost exclusive to the biological side (there is a social side, as well, as the biological has been heavily focused on and exaggerated to a point of objectification...which has already been discussed as well.)

Originally posted by Peach
Uh-huh...sure. No, people rarely ever use "*****" that way. And even if they were, how do you not see the problems in using a term that refers to females as an insult?

1. That's exactly how they are using it: a combative, aggressive, and grumpy female synonymous of a female dog's demeanor, usually after giving birth.

2. Did I EVER say that it wasn't a problem to refer to people as such?

Originally posted by Peach
Are you joking? Really? No, people do not use that word to refer to a cat. It's used as an insult because it's a crude slang term for a part of a woman's anatomy and men being seen as anything less than completely masculine is, in this society, a horrible thing.

Yes, when referring to a vagina, that's what it means. When referring to someone acting scared, I don't see how it is even remotely logical to be referring to them other than the "pussy-cat" truncation, which is where it comes from. Did you know that? I bet you’d have a good case for teenage boys calling eachother “p*ssys” in the way you’re describing them, though. It just doesn’t seem logical to me, though.

Originally posted by Peach
How many more sexist insults do you think you can defend?

How many more non-sexist ones do you think you can criticize as being sexist?

Originally posted by Peach
Except no one wants this. People are not the same. Only complete idiots want something like this. No, what is wanted here is for people to recognize that despite of differences between everyone, everyone is equal and deserving of the same rights and freedoms.

It was a joke and NOT a serious comment, at all. It was a reference to a Southpark episode.

And, I agree: only idiots want that.

And, again, no, the sexes are not "equal."

I also agree that we should get equal rights and freedoms. Front lines of a war, equal pay on jobs, etc. As long as a person is competent to perform that job, they should not be restricted from doing it and should be compensated on equal terms of ability.

Originally posted by Peach
Let's see how much more mansplaining we can get going on here 🙄

K. Let's see how much worse you can make real feminists look.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am all for the former. I do however think we should celebrate real difference, not artificial ones. And we should not use them to disadvantage individuals.

If you do that, though, it is sexist. We cannot celebrate differences, in a general sense.

We can celebrate our individual differences, however, and avoid the sexist portion of the discussion.

IE:

Sexist way: Women have better skin than men.

Good way: Wow, Sarah, you have better skin than mine.

The former is probably true, in a general sense, but it could be sexist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to think that I am attacking you. I don't think you are sexist, and I have no problem with you having preferences to certain females. You are personalizing an issue that is about a state of society. Do you think you are like the general population? Because I believe you are smarter than most people, you are an exception, not the norm.

You specifically said:

"What you are saying is what I am talking about, you are conditioned to dislike the traits on males but like them on females."

While I do not think that was some sort of rage attack on your part, it was specifically directed at me. i did not personalize that. I understand that you are trying to make a point about sexism, in general, as well.

And, thanks: I think you're really smart people, as well. 🙂

Originally posted by Bardock42
So why do you find "girly girls" or men that are like "girly girls" intolerable when working outside? Non of the traits you gave there are a good reason for that, so there must be other traits, ones not mentioned, that makes "girly girls" intolerable in these circumstances.

That's easy: those will little muscle mass, high estrogen content, and lots of curves, do not have as much endurance and lifting capacity as others. It makes a 2 man job become a 3 or 4 man job. And, we can pretend that hormones play no part in emotions, but that doesn't explain why idiot body-builders becoming depressed and start crying all over the place like children when all of that test. starts aromatizing into estrogen. Obviously, our biology can affect our mood. This is not to say that women are whiners and complainers while working outside: tens of thousands of years beg to differ. I'm just saying that there is a general difference and it's easier to work with those humans that have more masculine traits: lots of test, muscle, size, endurance, aggression. There are several females that go to the gym with me that I would prefer to build a house with over ANY of my male coworkers, if that's an indication of where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not, you are basing everything on yourself. I have no desire to discuss you. I am talking about the view and understanding most people have. Like I said, most people few females, and these feminine traits not as something to aspire to, but something to possess. And the problem is not what people like or dislike, it's that society requires (still to a certain degree) boys and girls to fit these stereotypes.

I kind of disagree that you had no desire to discuss me when your comments directly mention things I've state. However, if that's the case, we'll drop and I'll ignore when you mention me, specifically, for the sake of not pissing you off.

I agree that that those are traits that they aspire to posses. Anthropological evidence shows that large breasts have been a sign of fertility for a LOOOOONG time: well before modern societies were built. That should indicate that we have been "sexist" long before we called it sexism or even knew what that was. If I were to guess, sexism existed before humans.

Should we work to overcome what evolution has created? Absolutely! Because of our big brains, we should definitely rise above primitive organization. We also can't blame being "apes" on our sexism, as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, I don't have any stats on that, lets just say I encountered many people who do, and you haven't. Can we agree though, that what I said does exist, at least to some degree, even if you think not nearly as prevalent as I believe.

Nor do I. Growing up, we used to call each other "female dog" to get away with calling each other "b*tch."

These days, I great my male pals with "SUP B*TCH!"

However, I would agree that if someone says, "you're my b*tch", that that context is sexist. Is that the context you were referring to? If so, I apologize: you were right.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't mean to "libel" you. I am sorry if you think that was my intention. I was referring to most people not thinking about cats when they call someone a pussy.

I never said kitten, nor did I mean it. In fact, I'd say that kittens are bolder than their adult counterparts. No worries.

I was thinking that, when they refer to people as p*ssy, they are thinking about the traits of it's origins: p*ssy-cat. Definitely NOT thinking about vaginas. It would make me "lol" if that's what people were referring to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, the thing I said there is actually a tiny thing that we can surely do.

I do to: that's a very stupid idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are misinterpreting my standpoint a bit, it seems to me like you are arguing with a straw man version of militant feminism that I don't think I supported in my posts.

I am not. I'm commenting on the direction that some people are trying to take things with the feminist movement...with a Southpark reference. (The Turkish people from the future.)

I don't think you are a militant feminist. I don't even think I said that. I think, though, that you are looking for things that are sometimes not there, as is Peach. However, there is a crap-load of sexism. Man on woman, man on man, woman on man, and woman on woman. All those different types need to be toned down a bit. People need to stop being so shallow.

If that happens, then things like "The Bachelor" can go away.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thought this was funny and somewhat on point:

http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/evolution-rape-ovulation-and-how-to-get.html

lol. Awesome. However, I see the opposite occuring: they use the research to prove that they are the same. I have seen the "gay-men" lumped together with "straight-women" though.

DDM, nobody uses the words ***** and pussy as insults in reference to the animals... I can't believe you're even trying to argue that. It should be plain obvious using these words in conversation that they're both references to supposed female behavior ("bitchy"/whiny for the first and timid/weak for the second).

I'm interested in these supposed big genetic differences in male/female brains... inimalist says there are almost no differences and i'm usually inclined to take his word on these issues.