Feminists

[Neosutra]

You werent arguing semantics?

[Shade]

How do they get popular in the first place?

It's social... introduction of it at an early age, association of it with with certain types of people. It's self perpetuating. Each new generation doesn't start fresh, it's influenced by the standards the previous ones set up for it. Plus, color associations aren't universal across the planet... just look at the color of mourning which in the West is black, but in much of the East, is white.

[Darus Grey]

Amelia Bloomer came from a modest backround and married an attorney, but I don't quite think she qualified as a wife of a "powerful high-society man".

Germaine Greer, one of the first to speak up about bras, came from a pretty well-to-do background, but worked as a college professor.

Generally it's the emergence of middle classes the fuels revolutions... awareness of where they came from/those below them coupled with means to act on it, in numbers at least. Revolution by traditionally powerful elites is practically antithetical.

I edited my post backing up my claim. In revolutionary theory the biggest catalyst in any revolution is the dissidence of the elite, and every revolution(except the two...maybe) have been primarily backed by the elite.

Wife of an attorney and a college professor are "Upper class"...if you're limiting your definition of upper-class to bill gates you'd probably be right.

It's not even slightly antithetical(and to argue such you'd have to go against theorists with a lot more credentials than either of us to speak on the matter).

Ignoring just about every french revolution right? Alot of the revolutions come from the poor just not wanting to take anymore.

There's a difference between who starts a revolution and who fights it.

Hell, even terrorist groups are almost exclusively led by people with multiple PHDs(or equivalently STRONG educations) and wealthy backgrounds.

[Beckwin]

How do they get popular in the first place?

there's really no singular answer for that. chalk it up to a mix of marketing, good design, popularity in respect to the trends of the time, etc. It's how something becomes institutionalized into the gender roles that's more important/relevant. It's one thing to commonly give girls baby dolls- and early way of teaching childcare, perhaps (not that males shouldn't learn how to care for a child and not that all women need to have/care for children in today's world, but bear with me), yet it's something completely different to commonly give girls "beauty" dolls- Barbies, Bratz, etc. Girls like playing with dolls as much as boys like action figures (look at those analogous terms being so loaded, lol), but just take a look at which fantasies are being presented to the genders- homemaker, pretty girl, very conventional for the little girls, and boys have rugged adventures with their GI Joes, firemen, ninjas, and fantastic superheroes without much of a concern for fashion, looks, or calmer/bookish behavior.

[Maguspk]

You werent arguing semantics?

That is a nice short quip but too bad it's wrong and at no point was I arguing semantics.

Your simple statistics does not work in that the elite of the elite males are still posting TIMES greater than the elite of the elite of females. BTW, i made up some statistics for you too.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7...sarefunhy4.png

You're still missing the point, in that you can't compare the best to the best because men have had generations to improve their game, women have barely had one. But your graph basically indicates my argument, see how women are progressing at a faster rate? That's basically the argument, women have a more natural affinity for the long distance/endurance activities and as a result will most likely compete or pass the male equivalents.

[Penthesilea]

That is a nice short quip but too bad it's wrong and at no point was I arguing semantics.



You're still missing the point, in that you can't compare the best to the best because men have had generations to improve their game, women have barely had one. But your graph basically indicates my argument, see how women are progressing at a faster rate? That's basically the argument, women have a more natural affinity for the long distance/endurance activities and as a result will most likely compete or pass the male equivalents.

Do you also see how unfit the trend is as a model for women compared to the fitness of the model for men?

[Maguspk]

Do you also see how unfit the trend is as a model for women compared to the fitness of the model for men?

Mostly because the periods of time for which they were recorded are different, while men have increased at a steady rate over a given amount of time, women have progressed much faster over a shorter period of time, so of course the variance among the velocities and forcing all those values to be bunched up in the shorter time period, is going to result in a large discrepancy among the velocities.

[Beckwin]

I edited my post backing up my claim. In revolutionary theory the biggest catalyst in any revolution is the dissidence of the elite, and every revolution(except the two...maybe) have been primarily backed by the elite.

Wife of an attorney and a college professor are "Upper class"...if you're limiting your definition of upper-class to bill gates you'd probably be right.

It's not even slightly antithetical(and to argue such you'd have to go against theorists with a lot more credentials than either of us to speak on the matter).



There's a difference between who starts a revolution and who fights it.

I think we're more or less having some conflict in terminology. I don't think Upper Class automatically means Powerful Elite. Revolutionary movements very often and sometimes require some support from the upper echelons and a lot of times our history tends to overemphasize that due to the writings, oratory, and leadership skills being concentrated higher up, but by definition a Revolution is an overthrow of ruling power.

The American Revolution didn't start with the King and his colonial governors; it came from some anti-british colonial elites and a lot of middle class colonists (might be off in my knowledge here, but the Paul Reveres and Tom Paines might fit the middle/upper middle class bill versus the Washingtons/Jeffersons) along with the "common" man.

The civil rights movement (a social revolution of sorts) didn't start with elite whites, although it certainly was aided by a few.

[MarkM.]

I know this is 9 pages in, so if its been posted already, feel free to disregard. But I have a question. How many people have ever heard a woman say "I want a good job so my husband can stay home with my kids?"

Side note: There's two female doctors where I live, and their husbands are stay at home dads.

[Kuya]

If it is not so much of a natural thing then, at least for a good amount of a group of people, then what is it?

Socialization. You don't have to be aware of it, in fact, most of the time you aren't. The mistake is to assume that if something can't be seen actively changing things then it must be innate, this is the problem. Socialization is not some change that you can easily observe; it is constant and for all intent and purposes is an invisible process. To assume that girls like to play with dolls because they "just do" tells us nothing, but what it does tell us is that these gender stereotypes reinforce eachother.

Even myself as an example, I am very strict when it comes to the rules, but no one told me to be, although I am aware that it can be a projected image, and my father is very lax when it comes to them. So what does that mean?

It means that you've been socialized for it. As i've already said, something that remains nearly constant is the idea that men are physically stronger and women are best for child caring, that is because it is based on nature, it is a conclusion drawn from appearances, but the behaviour has nothing to do with some innate nature, it is what we conceptualize via our observations. We observe that men tend to be bigger, hence they might be better for hunting, but the aggression we raise them to have is nothing but a consequence of the role we've assigned them and how we socialize them to face it. Beyond our physical differences, all else is socially constructed gender.

[Darus Grey]

I think we're more or less having some conflict in terminology. I don't think Upper Class automatically means Powerful Elite. Revolutionary movements very often and sometimes require some support from the upper echelons and a lot of times our history tends to overemphasize that due to the writings, oratory, and leadership skills being concentrated higher up, but by definition a Revolution is an overthrow of ruling power.

The American Revolution didn't start with the King and his colonial governors; it came from some anti-british colonial elites and a lot of middle class colonists (might be off in my knowledge here, but the Paul Reveres and Tom Paines might fit the middle/upper middle class bill versus the Washingtons/Jeffersons) along with the "common" man.

The civil rights movement (a social revolution of sorts) didn't start with elite whites, although it certainly was aided by a few.

Again, there's a difference between who fights the revolution and who starts it.

If you look at the 5 factors for successful revolutions(Mass Discontent, Elite Dissent, Unifying Motive, State Crisis, and World Permissiveness), the only factor that is present in every single one is Elite Dissent.

Some part of the bourgesois breaks off of society and backs the lower classes in revolution. In revolutionary theory this is considered the "start" and is a position Goldstone, Skocpol, and even Engels all took. Before that point it's simply mass discontent, which historically does nothing on it's own.

[Penthesilea]

Mostly because the periods of time for which they were recorded are different, while men have increased at a steady rate over a given amount of time, women have progressed much faster over a shorter period of time, so of course the variance among the velocities and forcing all those values to be bunched up in the shorter time period, is going to result in a large discrepancy among the velocities.

So lets consider that, at what point did males see their exponential growth that females are seeing? At what point will female performance plateau like male performance? There's a limit to our physical capabilities, and males are just fine tuning it at this point, shaving off seconds, whereas women are still trying to cut down in minutes.

It's silly to suggest that women haven't had time to improve and that they'll surpass men in long distance running when you're providing no data for it. That lines fitness only shows the discrepancies in interest in the sport for women. I don't believe for a second that had men and women records been kept from the same length of time, that women would continue that trend and be running at 50km/h.

Again, here are some more sources to suggest that you're wrong.

2008 Outdoor : New2008No1s : DyeStat Rankings: Records, Results, and Top Performances | DyeStat.com
New2008No1s : DyeStat Rankings: Records, Results, and Top Performances | DyeStat.com
2005 Season Summary - Athletes of the Year - DyeStat High School Track

[Beckwin]

Again, there's a difference between who fights the revolution and who starts it.

If you look at the 5 factors for successful revolutions(Mass Discontent, Elite Dissent, Unifying Motive, State Crisis, and World Permissiveness), the only factor that is present in every single one is Elite Dissent.

Some part of the bourgesois breaks off of society and backs the lower classes in revolution. In revolutionary theory this is considered the "start" and is a position Goldstone, Skocpol, and even Engels all took. Before that point it's simply mass discontent, which historically does nothing on it's own.

I agree, but those who break off don't really represent the controlling elite and the maintainers of the status quo, do they? I guess I should've clarified more, but let's try this: It's not the Cindy McCains, Laura Bushs, and Ivanna Trumps that start burning bras and wearing bloomers. It's not the aristocracy or titans of industry that start worker's movements. etc and so forth.

[Kuya]

I don't know what Beckwin is saying, but what Darus is saying is accurate. Most revolutions happen importantly because a more privileged class starts it and allows it to carry along. The French Revolution was nothing more than one elite being replaced by another. Can change be created by people of lower domains? Sure, but that is very unlikely and if it were it probably couldn't change anything pertaining to dismounting the current elite.

It's not the Cindy McCains, Laura Bushs, and Ivanna Trumps that start burning bras and wearing bloomers. It's not the aristocracy or titans of industry that start worker's movements. etc and so forth.

But they aren't started by the poor or close to poor middle class or by non whites. The feminist movement is largely run by white upper middle class women, and so is the LGTB (men & women).

[Metah]

I used his words hence why 'smart' is in quotes. Don't argue semantics.

He never said she was smarter than him. He said they were both smart in different ways, and that he didn't think one could accurately measure how "smart" someone is based on something like an academic test alone.

That is a nice short quip but too bad it's wrong and at no point was I arguing semantics.

I don't think you are actually making an argument in any regard.

Both Shade's and Beckwin's posts were also very insightful, thanks for the replies.

[Beckwin]

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born on a sugar plantation in Birán, near Mayarí, in the modern-day province of Holguín – then a part of the now-defunct Oriente province. He was the third child born to Ángel Castro y Argiz, a Galician immigrant from the impoverished northwest of Spain who became relatively prosperous through work in the sugar industry and successful investing.[11] His mother, Lina Ruz González, who was a household servant, was also of Galician background.[5] Angel Castro was married to another woman, Maria Luisa Argota,[12] until Fidel was 17, and thus Fidel as a child had to deal both with his illegitimacy and the challenge of being raised in various foster homes away from his father's house.

food for thought, I guess. Look I'm not denying that upper classes serve as important enablers to revolution, but I'm saying that revolutions aren't born out of the status quo/most powerful elite. and I won't deny that the upper-class enablers often become the new ruling class and the cycle repeats (that's pretty central to marxism).

but anyways, to shift back somewhat on topic, just think about what I said regarding McCain/Bush/Trump and bras, because we're gonna get real off-base talking more political/governmental revolutions. I think I'm trying to refer to cultural changes with respect to gender roles.

[Darus Grey]

I agree, but those who break off don't really represent the controlling elite and the maintainers of the status quo, do they? I guess I should've clarified more, but let's try this: It's not the Cindy McCains, Laura Bushs, and Ivanna Trumps that start burning bras and wearing bloomers. It's not the aristocracy or titans of industry that start worker's movements. etc and so forth.

Now that you've clarified, you're *mostly* right. I hate to be a jerk but when you break that down isn't that sort of a "duh"? conclusion. Of course the controlling elite don't rebel...they don't have to, they're already in control.

For the record I define controlling elite as those who actually have controlling power(i.e. not a minor viceroy or a middle-road noble who may in-fact control land, but those who actually control the entire country, because otherwise it'd fall apart again as there's plenty of examples of people with power who wanted MORE power. But those at the top with REAL ULTIMATE POWER! don't have any reason to rebel, they're the one's who get rebelled against)

Edit: And the Cuban revolution is one of the two I mentioned that is a huge quagmire in the revolutionary debates, The other is Nicaragra(I think, and I seriously have no idea how that country is spelt!, nor care to find out). Generally speaking because they're so contested it also makes them worthless as debate material.

[Maguspk]

So lets consider that, at what point did males see their exponential growth that females are seeing? At what point will female performance plateau like male performance? There's a limit to our physical capabilities, and males are just fine tuning it at this point, shaving off seconds, whereas women are still trying to cut down in minutes.

It's silly to suggest that women haven't had time to improve and that they'll surpass men in long distance running when you're providing no data for it. That lines fitness only shows the discrepancies in interest in the sport for women. I don't believe for a second that had men and women records been kept from the same length of time, that women would continue that trend and be running at 50km/h.

Again, here are some more sources to suggest that you're wrong.

2008 Outdoor : New2008No1s : DyeStat Rankings: Records, Results, and Top Performances | DyeStat.com
New2008No1s : DyeStat Rankings: Records, Results, and Top Performances | DyeStat.com
2005 Season Summary - Athletes of the Year - DyeStat High School Track

Ok this isn't an argument since you're failing to concede the point on which you're wrong, i.e.
20 years not being enough time to decide women are inferior to men in a particular field.

Nobody is saying women are superior, the point is that saying men dominate all things physical is foolish considering the data suggests that women are naturally more equipped to perform in endurance activities. Also, judging from your responses I know for a fact you haven't read the BBC article I posted awhile back. That being said, I'm done. The point is arguing that men are superior in everything physical (strength, speed, etc.) like you did, just isn't valid.

[Metah]

To Kuya, sure, I can admit that maybe I was socialized into becoming strict with rules. But you appear to have completely ignored my main point. You blame socialization, but how did these become institutionalized in the first place? Were they not partly natural, and that caused them to become socialized?

Gee, now I remember why Sociology is my least favourite subject. We can all argue until we bite our tongues off and no one will be completely right lol

[Kuya]

You blame socialization, but how did these become institutionalized in the first place? Were they not partly natural, and that caused them to become socialized?

What was? If you want a more detailed argument you are going to have to be extremely detailed in your presentation.

And, speaking generally, that's the point. They may have a biological or physical basis, but they are distorted, developed, and organized by context.