Feminists

[Beckwin]

And how exactly is flexibility an issue when working in a crawlspace? If anything, when working in a really small crawlspace, you can run into problems with your size and the length of your arms. I can see how just plain being smaller could be helpful in those circumstances.

...and women are plain smaller, in general, funny how that works out. the flexibility could come into play for the actual crawling around in some tight spaces, but whatever, I think you're trying too hard to ignore the general point on a potential technicality in the specific example I used.

[Kaelia]

It seems like a lot of this thread simply wants to believe that men are either equal or better at everything, using examples where women have the advantage and then saying "but that doesn't matter because men have an advantage here, here, and here related to that."

...and women are plain smaller, in general, funny how that works out. the flexibility could come into play for the actual crawling around in some tight spaces, but whatever, I think you're trying too hard to ignore the general point on a potential technicality in the specific example I used.

Like here, I like what Beckwin's saying. It's funny how people are saying that "well men are stronger on average, so they are better for X, Y, and Z," but refuse to admit that "well women are smaller on average, so they are better for X, Y, and Z" is just as valid a standpoint.

[shukuffxi]

The scientist thing quoted a few posts above doesn't say to me "There go those men, stealing from women!", more like "There go those greedy SOBs who want the fame, and willing to steal from whoever", it just happened to be a woman

If you go through a lot of scientific discovery, you'll find numerous instances of people saying their work was stolen. That being said, historically speaking it's only relatively recent that women have had such things to be stolen in the first place, since women's rights have progressed enormously in the past 100 years alone.

[Kaelia]

The scientist thing quoted a few posts above doesn't say to me "There go those men, stealing from women!", more like "There go those greedy SOBs who want the fame, and willing to steal from whoever", it just happened to be a woman

If you go through a lot of scientific discovery, you'll find numerous instances of people saying their work was stolen. That being said, historically speaking it's only relatively recent that women have had such things to be stolen in the first place, since women's rights have progressed enormously in the past 100 years alone.

I didn't post it to say "oh there go those men, stealing from women" and simply that. The poster that I was responding to basically said that women have not contributed anything to the scientific world. And I quote:

Marie Curie was a good scientist, but that is all women has offered for the advance of human civilization.

I wasn't trying to make such a point on the fact that the men stole it, but the fact that a woman ACCOMPLISHED something in the scientific world, and men just so happened to get the credit for it. He's saying that we only hear about men making advances in science, so I thought that anecdote was an appropriate one.

I probably didn't explain that too well, but do you catch my point?

[Penthesilea]

And the diseases are only problems when and if they actually kill off the species. Are you sure you understand evolution? It seems you're hung up on things being the toughest, as per your subjective standards.

By the way, no one said that women have more strength than men, what was argued against was the idea that women are physically inferior, as such a statement is wholly ignorant.

If you don't mind me asking, how many years have you been studying genetics for?

Evolution and disease go hand in hand and as such the problem isn't whether they kill off the species, but whether the species can move away from them. Diseases are a problem in that they continue to manifest themselves until they're selected away (not always possible). Fitness =/= natural selection either.

I jumped in saying that they're physically inferior in regards to strength and got shit for it. I didn't say they were wholly inferior, just that they're inferior to males in that regards (competition for mates or strength), while having the advantage in others (birthing).

I don't "study" genetics right now, but my background coursework has been: genetics, human genetics, molecular genetics, immunology (mostly linking to epidemiology and the genetics of immunology), epidemiology, and drawing a blank on the last one. While my background doesn't make me an expert, it's safe to say it's stronger than most.

Anyways, I need to get some sleep, I gotta work in 5.5 hrs.

Edit: I guess selected is what you want me to use, but I used bred because physical strength is something that is artificially selected for. Strength is artificially bred for in males (through glorifying masculinity) so natural selection isn't totally at play here.

[shukuffxi]

I didn't post it to say "oh there go those men, stealing from women" and simply that. The poster that I was responding to basically said that women have not contributed anything to the scientific world. And I quote:



I wasn't trying to make such a point on the fact that the men stole it, but the fact that a woman ACCOMPLISHED something in the scientific world, and men just so happened to get the credit for it. He's saying that we only hear about men making advances in science, so I thought that anecdote was an appropriate one.

I probably didn't explain that too well, but do you catch my point?

np~ That's what I thought, was just pointing that out. Women have contributed plenty to society, more so more recently. Nellie Bly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia There are hundreds of examples like this.

I am not sure but I think it's better that women, or children's, or people of ethnicity get singled out for something they have done. It's another way of separating things, of making it seem unnatural/lesser.

[Beckwin]

Strength is artificially bred for in males (through glorifying masculinity) so natural selection isn't totally at play here.

honestly man, where have you been for the last few hundred years?

what bothers me about a lot of what you're saying is that it seems you're still treating men and women as if we're stone-age hunter/gatherers. technology, social hierarchy, the developments of wealth/economy, etc have done huge damage to the idea that only physically strong men will be passing on their seed because they win in competition among other males.

and btw, there does appear to be a non-muscle mass related flexibility advantage that females have, due to bone structure.

[Neosutra]

I dont know, I would say my personal belief is that men/women are intellectually equal(though we approach problems differently), however I am very hesitant to commit to any idea of females being equal to males physically (from a "tough" military perspective of physical standards). Just doesnt cut it.

[Beckwin]

from a "tough" military perspective of physical standards

and the root of the argument here: perspective, or perhaps more accurately, a singular/narrow one.

[fantasticdan]

...and women are plain smaller, in general, funny how that works out. the flexibility could come into play for the actual crawling around in some tight spaces, but whatever, I think you're trying too hard to ignore the general point on a potential technicality in the specific example I used.

Yeah, it's funny, it's almost like it's why I said that. And no, unless you're talking about some weird guys that are inflexible enough that they can't crawl around, flexibility is not the issue, size is. You're also forgetting that by doing almost any type of physical labor, you're going to build muscle mass, and likely lose whatever flexibility advantage you had in the first place, aside from the leg spreading.

I don't disagree that pure physical strength has become a lot less important, but to pretend there's a lot of labor jobs out there that benefit from small size more than strength is silly. Your specific example is relevant, because it's one of the best possible examples for your argument, and even in that case, I would say simple arm/hand strength is more important than a small frame. Having to work in crawlspaces and attics small enough that the size of the worker vs. working space becomes an issue, isn't all that common.

[Neosutra]

and the root of the argument here: perspective, or perhaps more accurately, a singular/narrow one.

I wouldnt even try to argue that I dont see the world a bit differently than most, however I would venture to say I am not closed/singular/narrow minded at the very least.

Having one perception of physical strength isnt any more "right" than another, however it is the perspective I have worked with for a long time, and a perspective that is deeply involved in alot of my military work.

[Churchill]

That's not what I meant. I mean the causes of women being physically weaker are 10% biological 90% cultural. Women obviously have enormous strength potential and can easily surpass most men's strength.

do you really believe half of what you post

[Churchill]

Personal experience, women don't handle stressful situations as well as men. Women also tend to create stress where it shouldn't be, but that's probably due to insecurity but who knows.

One example is having your loved one go away for a long period of time. I don't know many relationships that handle well under this strain, whether due to the husband being a piece of shit while away or the wife being insecure in her own right, that strain seems to really kill people. Military marriages aren't really all that classy anyway.

My job...I've seen women do it poorly for the most part, but I've known a few that were good at it, but they all did it in places that had no stress involved. I've seen a lot of women who augment us go home early on psych cases and whatnot because of the environment.

So I think there are some key differences, my field is a small one but it has more general applications. In the end, you shape yourself into what you want to be, and I'll respect you if you respect yourself.

[kooja]

Ignoring the arguments of strength and flexibility, there is something I've noticed about the relations between men and women. In school (I'm only in high school so it's my only real context for this), it seems as though men expect their female peers to be inherently lesser than they in terms of intellectual aptitude whether the peers be classmates or more intimate partners. I don't really have any data with which to base this observation, but I can tell that something has gone wrong (or maybe not wrong but if we're hoping that men and women will be equal it feels wrong) when the female count in a "Gifted" class goes from being essentially equal to that of males in elementary and early secondary school to being far below the number of males. It is also strange that the class discussions in all of the "advanced" classes I have taken are extremely male dominated even when many of the highest grades on tests and in the class as a whole are achieved by females.

I don't know exactly what I was trying to get at, but I think society or some facet thereof works to inhibit female's desires to achieve or to be seen achieving (or fewer women care; I don't know. I'm not a woman).

[Churchill]

Most of my gifted classes were women, at least for the literature pieces. The science classes were about 70/30 men:women.

I think that has to do with the perception of being smart as bad that kind of gets put into mens minds. I know a lot of really smart guys that spent more time fucking and chasing pipe dreams of athletics.

[kooja]

I guess the enrollment in certain classes probably just varies from group to group, but I'm still wondering why women seem to be more reserved in class discussions to the point of having to be put on the spot by the teacher to give up some sort of answer (I don't know if that's a good practice and this was mostly in reference to a history class where the teacher would start to ask students questions individually rather than letting someone offer up the answer).

I also wonder if I'm right in my judgment of the merits of "speaking up" in class, but, when reserve inhibits discussion, I am inclined to think giving answers aids in learning. (though I guess this could also just be a reluctance to answer incorrectly, but that doesn't account for the fact that some of these people can score incredibly well on tests yet are unable to raise their hand and say what they know) I guess they could just be "in it" for the grade but I'd assume people cared more about learning than that.

[Vail]

gymnast were mentioned earlier for the strength/flexability arguement

but take it a step further: Figure-Skater and Triple Axel

I think only 5 women ever have performed a Triple Axel during a professional competition. Were it's kinda hard to find a professional male figure skater who can't do a triple axel: some guys are even starting to push into a Quad Axel (but it still hasn't been done in competition)

and ofcourse watching women figure skaters you can see that they (more often) can move their body in ways that are abit beyond what their male counterparts normally can do. Mainly with the Layback spin variants.


My Aunt and I had a conversation about lady-like behavior and acting unlady like. (also pointing in reference to:

#8 Women get scolded for “un-ladylike” behaviour: using coarse language, talking frankly about sex or other “impolite” topics, confidently voicing one’s dissenting opinion, etc.

when I think of un-lday like, I'm mostly thinking of being openly rude,overly controlled by anger, or flat out being violent. Those of which I'm pretty sure most people don't think too highly of. So my aunt asked: why would a woman want to be "un-lady-like" (aka - "being a man") when it's basicly lowering yourself

As a child, my father taught my brothers and I how to resolve confrontations with others through several methods, including violence. But he also taught us how to assess which method to use (which often means violence is one of, if not the last resort) I don't have any sisters so I don't know how a daughter in my family would have been taught about these sort of things.

When I was in elementry school, "boys will be boys" as they say, I got in my fair share of fights, and alot of those other boys I fought became some of my best friends (some still to this day) But things changed, by high school, the few boys who would fight would hold grudges and things didn't stop after the fight was over.

The other thing I noticed was: I honestly cannot recall ever seeing girls fight in elementry. but girls fought in my high school nearly 10 to 1 compared to guy fights.

I honestly believe that many women in our current age are becoming more violent. As for what is causing this I'm not sure: but it does root to the whole "un-lady-like" ideal.

I personally feel it's apart of the number of single mother familys, lacking that male authority figure in both young male and young female's lives. (I think that's a discussion for another topic: with regards to parent roles) I know I saw a report saying that father-child involvement has increased extremely in the last 50 years for children who do have fathers at home, but we also have less children with a father at home then we did 50 years ago.

Sorry for going alittle bit off topic, when I hear about Feminism or gender equally I tend to look first at custody cases and the inequallity there, so that's the main thing I tend to focus in on. (Since I'm a male, and that subject is important to me)

[Metah]

I'm still wondering why women seem to be more reserved in class discussions to the point of having to be put on the spot by the teacher to give up some sort of answer

Must be something with your classmates themselves. In all of my classes, many women are not afraid to speak their mind or what they think the answer is in ANY of my university classes. Especially in my English class discussions.

I guess they could just be "in it" for the grade but I'd assume people cared more about learning than that.

You assume wrong, sir.

---

I kind of hate this topic. Men vs. Women and dominant "race" vs. oppressed "race". To understand discrimination and inequality, one cannot look at just men vs. women, white vs. black, etc. You must look at all factors. Being a white male, I always feel like I'm taking the brunt of the hate. I've never outwardly oppressed anyone of a different skin colour or the opposite gender in my life. What I think many hardcore feminists fail to see is that sexism is a communal entity. It can exist in today's society even if many of its members do not beleive or follow through any sort of sexism. It is because it is simply beyond each individual and remains because of the ghosts of the past. And demonizing a single person will not get anyone anywhere in most cases. Because of this, it can be difficult to change anything, at least not without a lot of time.

In reality, no one is created equal. We are all different. I thought this is what western societies deemed as desirable? To be unique, to be your own self? So why is it that people group themselves together like this? Is it because of a single belief? When people group themselves, they create an image, an image that gets shown by the media. Media does not create these images most of the time. So when this image of like people (regardless of how they are like) gets shown around, people start to make associations. There is no way around this, it is natural thought process. A person groups like things together and respond to them accordingly. This is how you get images like feminazis. And when a person encounters a person who matches a rough description, in their heads they make discriminations.

What does this mean? It means that equality is inaccessable because people either conciously or unconciously group themselves to others who share certain traits. And because people not only look at how things are similar but also at how they are different, a discrimination is made, destroying any hope of equality.

The best we can do as humans in order to shorten the gap of inequality is to fade out groupings. Treat each person by their own merits. This is easier said than done. When you see a woman on the street, you will just try to match what description she fits to a list of possible known groupings in your mind. This is not a bad thing. All people do this without thinking in order to make our lives easier. If you had to try and discover how each person you meet everyday is (their personalities, abilities and beleifs), you will be very stressed out.

What is the true answer then? There is none. Our bodies are against us in terms of equality. Equality can only exist in the absence of discrimination. People will not ever not discriminate. Equality cannot exist beyond abstract thought in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of equality among all people. I don't think feminism is wrong per se. But the equality they desire is impossible. The best thing a feminist can hope for is that the tables turn, and men become the oppressed group.

[Kohan]

Being a white male, I always feel like I'm taking the brunt of the hate.

In before "It's so hard to be white!".

The best we can do as humans in order to shorten the gap of inequality is to fade out groupings. Treat each person by their own merits. This is easier said than done. When you see a woman on the street, you will just try to match what description she fits to a list of possible known groupings in your mind. This is not a bad thing. All people do this without thinking in order to make our lives easier. If you had to try and discover how each person you meet everyday is (their personalities, abilities and beleifs), you will be very stressed out.

As someone who is naturally fairly understanding, I disagree with this. If anything, I find myself much more relaxed by personally believing every person is decent, that their beliefs are reasonable, and that their abilities are competent for a contributor to society. Whenever someone cuts me off in traffic, I'm normally not angry at them, or if I am, it isn't for long; I think about the times I was in a hurry to get somewhere, and realize that I surely aggravated others along the way. Likewise, if someone bumps into me while I'm out and about, I don't mind them; I've had times where I was too pre-occupied to apologize and continued along my way.

So, perhaps I am not specifically discovering how these people truly are because I'm not running up to and grilling each of them, but I do view them as if I knew them and therefore find myself much less stressed. Only when I begin to complain or otherwise let these things concern me do I start to feel bothered.

I don't group people; I consider them to be, well, people.

[Darus Grey]

Just to chime in...why are some of you talking about flexibility? That's such a flawed argument. It just sounds like such a cop-out answer.

Even if it is superior, even in modern times, having greater physical strength comes into play 10000X more in your daily life. Where I can...uh...not think of a single situation where I ever needed to be more flexible.

Fringe examples like crawlspaces are great...cause everyone has to deal with those everyday.

I'm not gonna comment on equality but the flexible thing just jumped out at me as bullshit, in no way is being more flexible the *equal* of physical strength.
Plus...unlike physical strength a man can actually train to be near as flexible as a woman, where a woman can't train and attain anywhere near the strength of a man.