feminism: the radical concept that women are people.

Page 3 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,776
Location: USA

09 Dec 2013, 8:19 am

MCalavera wrote:
Magneto wrote:
Eh? That's not a non-sequitur... "The Amazing Atheist" isn't spouting crap because of his religion, but perhaps because of his culture.


And where did personality go?


Being an as*hole is a personality trait, but not being sexist. The point is he is by no means the only one, see reddit and 4chan in general. Just cesspools of misogynic atheists. Therefor religion isn't the only factor resulting in sexism.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

09 Dec 2013, 9:59 am

Are you saying that the Amazing Atheist is a M-Word? 8O



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

09 Dec 2013, 10:11 am

Schneekugel wrote:
I dont mind chivalry as long as both parts agree into it, and feel good with it. I am myself annoyed, that some men actually expect me to insist on them acting like that towards me, and then being annoyed/angry if I dont "let them act chivalry". I am simply not used to it and dont think of it, so it happens to me, that someone actually goes forth to open some door, without me mentioning it (because of me not thinking of such things) and then I stop because of me searching for my handy or whatever, and then the guy stands there and waits for me annoyed, without me even getting it.


Here is someone who tried to be chivalrous for a day (or maybe part of a day)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/feature ... leigh.html

Quote:
a truly chivalrous man is apparently as alien as a zoo exhibit.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Dec 2013, 1:15 pm

http://feministing.com/2013/12/09/times ... nt-matter/


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

09 Dec 2013, 1:19 pm

I thought TIME's Person of the Year was supposed to be the most influential person of that year, regardless of gender? It's not TIME's fault if the most influential people happen to be male...



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

09 Dec 2013, 1:26 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Here is someone who tried to be chivalrous for a day (or maybe part of a day)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/feature ... leigh.html


I've found that it's best not to be unfriendly, but rather distant with those I don't know. No chivalry.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm

Magneto wrote:
I thought TIME's Person of the Year was supposed to be the most influential person of that year, regardless of gender? It's not TIME's fault if the most influential people happen to be male...

It was most likely men that picked who would be on the list :D


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


AutisticMillionaire
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2013
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 174
Location: Montana

09 Dec 2013, 1:56 pm

Should it not be called feminism: the radical concept's for unmarriageable women ? (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!! ! :D ) A real feminist is a woman that can shoot a gun like a man. is self-sufficient and needs no legal perks or societal benefits unavailable to men. Nothings hotter than a competent woman.

When I moved to Montana, a popular news story of an old lady really made me feel like a N.Y. wimp.

A 70+ yr old woman, had a Grizzly bear charging her granddaughter in the back yard. She ran out side with a double barrel 12g. shotgun. With only one hand she picked up her granddaughter and shot the bear point blank in the face with both barrels....with the other hand!! !! !


That's a badass. That old lady is more than a man, than most men today.


_________________
"I don't care half so much about making money as I do about making my point, and coming out ahead."

"What do I care about law? Ain't I got the power?"
Cornelius Vanderbilt


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

09 Dec 2013, 2:20 pm

Women in this region often did the same work that the men did.Worked in the fields and then in the house."A man works from dusk till dawn but a woman's' work is never done."
Women's Lives and Work In The Ozarks

The women who have lived in and around the OZAR region have crafted family and community through a great deal of hard work. Technologies changed, various industries came and went, and the Ozark National Scenic Riverway was established. But even though women have seen a great deal of change in the last few generations, there are threads of continuity that stretch from homestead farming of the past, to state-of-the-art computerized classrooms of today.



A diversified approach to family subsistence is a practice that has persisted for generations in these hills, with women and men pursuing multiple possibilities for food production and income. Most families lived in rural areas and, until recently, raised or traded for the majority of what they consumed. In the past as well as today, it was not uncommon for a person to have two or more paying jobs, and to perhaps sell garden produce, eggs or firewood, to offer child care, or to sell arts and crafts.

Researchers have noted the practice of multiple economic strategies as a hallmark of Ozarks culture (Stevens 1991; Gibson 2000). This is an environment that is not abundant in any one resource, but instead offers many small opportunities from which to piece together a living, and a diversified approach is a tried and true means of survival. When we consider the range of diversity in women's activities, we see that their gender, rather than limiting or confining them to certain kinds of work, meant that an even greater range work was delegated to them.

The division of labor between women and men was not always so neatly defined. Some women plowed, planted, and helped in the fields during the harvests of corn and other grains. They also chopped or sawed wood and split rails for fences. Of course, women would undertake such "man's work" for a variety of reasons…" (Stevens 1991: 128).

Most centrally, of course, women undertook "women's work." At the center of life was the family. Families have always been central to community building, and women were and are often at the core of family organization. Women typically have been primarily responsible for child care, socialization, and instilling moral values in children. They usually provide meals for the family, as well as clothing and other basic daily necessities.

In addition, simply running a farm meant many kinds of work. Most women remembered growing up on farms where quite a number of different tasks were necessary in a day or a season to pull together the family's subsistence, and this was often combined with paid work. Additionally, these multiple tasks often meant undertaking and supervising many different kinds of work simultaneously. One woman told of her mother setting up the children with a reading lesson for the morning while she went out to milk cows and do other chores. She would return to the house and redirect the children in additional activities as well. Women of the Ozarks may certainly have been some of the earliest and most successful "multi-taskers."

For most of us, it is probably difficult to imagine, just a few generations ago, how hard women worked and what such work entailed. Just to clothe one's family was often more complicated than simply making the clothes by hand. The fabric, if not purchased from a store, had to first be produced. Even after the cotton had been grown or sheep had been raised and shorn—and women were likely to have no small part in these endeavors—cotton or wool would then need to be picked clean, carded, and spun, woven and dyed. These were jobs that were almost exclusively women's. And such work would oftentimes take place at night when women's outdoor work was over for the day (McNeil, 1995: 37-42). Like making clothes, other kinds of work were also more involved than we might first imagine. Not so many decades ago, washing clothes or other items meant one had to first make soap, an extremely time consuming activity. Lighting for the home meant making candles. Quilts on the beds needed to be pieced together and stitched. Having food for the winter meant drying or later, when it was technologically feasible, canning the season's crops. Butter had to be churned and animals butchered, cleaned and prepared. A kitchen garden had to be tended, in addition to crops in the field. Cooking meant building a fire in the stove, and having enough wood on hand to do so. The list of work related activities for a life lived on a basis that was in most respects self-sufficient is a long one, and women were the sole participants in many of these activities and an important contributor in many others.

Women of this region are proud of what they consider to be a strong work ethic, and they remember with fondness the hard working days of the past. Of course, all of the work women did and do is supported and complemented by the work of men of the family, as well as others in the community. Women spoke about community cooperation on butchering day, barn-raising and corn husking, or big canning days. Men did focus on farm and field work that was primarily their responsibility. But women contributed to "men's" work in ways that was rarely true in the reverse.

Spatially, for example, we can see that women typically ran the household, with the kitchen at its center. Work also took them out into the yard for washing, butchering and care of chickens. The garden might be relatively near the house, and the sheds, barns and fields further out. Women went into forests to gather firewood, berries and greens, or to gather in grazing animals. And so they traversed spaces that expanded far beyond their kitchen door. Men, on the other hand, usually did not share a command of domestic activities that were typically understood as "women's." Women spoke about the range of domains within and across which they worked, demonstrating their ability to apply themselves as economic generalists in ways even more far-reaching than men, in many cases. One woman remembers some of the subsistence and income-generating activities her family would engage in as she was growing up…

We lived on a creek and they got a lot of creek bottom land…and [my father] raised watermelons and cantaloupes and peanuts and of course I had to help with the peepaw and I had to lay the vines…And they sold some garden products, eggs and chickens and stuff like that. Mom canned and she froze stuff…you know, put everything into…all kinds of jellies…[B]efore the kids started school she stayed home but…she…took care of a neighbor, an elderly woman, and they had milk cows…and she sold milk so she still worked all the time. Then after both kids were in school…she worked at restaurants in 1964 or 1965. I can't remember what year it was but it was in the 1960's she went to work in the nursing home here in Van Buren and that's where she worked until she retired.
Another woman remembers fondly,

I had a very special mother. She…married really young, but she was so intelligent and so widely read. And she was really clever. She could sew. And she was so industrious that we always had more to eat than any of our neighbors. In fact, on weekends, people would come in, and I can see now it was for my mother's cooking, you know.

Oh, she was the most marvelous cook and we always had good things to eat. And we all helped. By the time we were three or four we could wash fruit jars, you know. And my mother was always workin.' She canned all summer and then she would sew all winter and…we just had kerosene lighting. And my mother read to us every night…

In addition to their considerable contributions to the sustenance of family, and the running of homes and farms, women throughout the past century and a half or more have taken up paid work outside the home. Women spoke of their grandmothers running general stores for timber camps, or serving as the sole postal worker for tiny post offices throughout the hills. Some women worked in early hotels and boarding houses, cooking and cleaning; in later decades they worked in restaurants and theaters. Less common, perhaps, were women who had more professional jobs in town, such as working in the family bank. In the present, of course, women work in all sectors, and are in many cases the sole or primary income earner for the family. Add to this the fact that some of them also work on degrees of higher education, while raising children and working at their jobs, and we see that the hard work ethic of the past burns just as fiercely in women of today.

This was from a NPS Ethnography.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

09 Dec 2013, 5:40 pm

Magneto wrote:
I thought TIME's Person of the Year was supposed to be the most influential person of that year, regardless of gender? It's not TIME's fault if the most influential people happen to be male...

The blogger should really have run with "TIME shows us that women still don't have enough influence". It's a list which predominantly selects world leaders, with entrepreneurs, military leaders and gimmicks making up most of the other places. TIME's lack of female selection reflects the lack of women at the top of the political and business worlds more than anything. I am slightly bemused that Bernanke got the nod ahead of Merkel (why isn't she on the shortlist?), but the blog post's list of women who should have made it is very poor. Prince George is surely a better nomination than his mother, and the other two are fairly obscure, particularly outside of America (and one of them is only story #9.

Here is the list:
Bashar Assad, President of Syria
Jeff Bezos, Amazon Founder
Ted Cruz, Texas Senator
Miley Cyrus, Singer
Pope Francis, Leader of the Catholic Church
Barack Obama, President of the United States
Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Edward Snowden, N.S.A. Leaker
Edith Windsor, Gay rights activist

It's hard to dispute Assad, Cruz, Pope Francis, Obama, Rouhani, Sebelius, or Snowden, even though that's quite US-centric. I'd remove Bezos, Cyrus and Windsor for George Zimmerman, Kim Jong Un and Angela Merkel (third term despite her party being unpopular; most influential leader in the EU). Maybe Chelsea Manning could justify inclusion, but she's kinda been overshadowed by Snowden.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

09 Dec 2013, 6:33 pm

In terms of people who's influence has been felt around the world, I'd say Pope Francis, Angela Merkel, Edward Snowden, Hassan Rouhani... maybe Barack Obama, but then, the US president will always make the list simply because of how powerful the US is. But I suppose you could say that about all but Snowden on that list...

How about Julian Assange and Elon Musk?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Dec 2013, 1:03 am

MCalavera wrote:
LKL wrote:
Your problem, 91, is that you're a decent human being who respects women as human beings. :wink:
Some guys (think 'Nice Guys(TM)')see chivalry as an alternative to actual respect, as opposed to an expression of it.


But wasn't your argument that it's sexist to treat women in such a special manner (because, after all, it is still a way of treating women as "other")? It looks to me like you've now changed your argument a bit.

I don't see a need for chivalry at all, even as 91 expresses it; however, if gendered expressions of mutual respect work for 91 and his fiancé, I will be amongst the last to claim that they're actually gestures of disrespect. Most of the time, in the real world, the men I see whom insist on 'chivalry' are using it as an alternative to respect - i.e., 'if I treat you this way, you must have sex with me/ service me in some gendered fashion.'



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

10 Dec 2013, 1:15 am

LKL wrote:
I don't see a need for chivalry at all, even as 91 expresses it; however, if gendered expressions of mutual respect work for 91 and his fiancé, I will be amongst the last to claim that they're actually gestures of disrespect. Most of the time, in the real world, the men I see whom insist on 'chivalry' are using it as an alternative to respect - i.e., 'if I treat you this way, you must have sex with me/ service me in some gendered fashion.'


That is probably quite accurate (although I would not go so far as to call it a majority). I have seen some pretty pathetic excuses for men who work seem very concerned with the virtue of themselves and of women. What is toxic to relationships in general is the entry of power as leverage. As I said, my fiancé out earns me by a significant margin but, as many 'chivalrous' men like to point out, men are generally stronger than women.

I cannot imagine that my relationship would survive if we concerned ourselves with those imbalances. Gender roles, when divorced form power can be expressions of respect and gender roles that relate to dis-empowering a member of a relationship can NEVER be an expression of respect. What perturbs me is the assertion that you can judge a relationship by its superficial images and that leads to people thinking that they can be justified in jumping to conclusions without actually knowing anyone.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Dec 2013, 1:19 am

MCalavera wrote:
Sounds more like a problem with religion in this case. Some religions also express prejudice against homosexuals as well.

There are a lot of Evangelicals preaching 'wifely submission,' too. I don't care where it comes from; I want it to change.
I'm not saying that the laws necessarily need to be any different (though I think that SCOTUS was full of s**t on their 'you can't sue for discrimination after the fact' ruling), but I wish more people had their eyes open.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Dec 2013, 1:33 am

Magneto wrote:
I thought TIME's Person of the Year was supposed to be the most influential person of that year, regardless of gender? It's not TIME's fault if the most influential people happen to be male...

http://poy.time.com
Quote:
TIME’s Person of the Year is bestowed by the editors on the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year. See who made the grade over TIME’s first eight decades.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine)
Quote:
Editors[edit]
Briton Hadden (1923–1929)
Henry Luce (1929–1949)
T. S. Matthews (1949–1953)
Hugh J. Jascock (1954-1969)
Managing editors[edit]
Managing Editor Editor From Editor To
T. S. Matthews 1943 1949
Roy Alexander 1949 1960
Otto Fuerbringer 1960 1968
Henry Grunwald 1968 1977
Ray Cave 1979 1985
Jason McManus 1985 1987
Henry Muller 1987 1993
James R. Gaines 1993 1995
Walter Isaacson 1996 2001
Jim Kelly 2001 2005
Richard Stengel 2006 2013
Nancy Gibbs 2013

It will be interesting to see if the ratio changes now that there's a woman at the helm.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

10 Dec 2013, 4:32 am

If she's unbiased, probably not. I can't see it going to anyone except Snowden or Pope Francis this year, if it's not US-centric. Or perhaps to some LGBT activist, given how many countries have introduced same sex marriage. We shall see if there are any women who significantly affect the world next year.