feminism: the radical concept that women are people.

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

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,978
Location: Reading, England

08 Dec 2013, 4:40 pm

LKL wrote:
Amazingly, a lot of these guys really think that they 'understand women;' often, they think that they understand women better than women understand themselves.

This isn't exclusively a male on female problem. Most people think that, if their friends were icebergs, they would see about 60% of them, whereas they personally are only 10% visible.

Excellent article though.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

08 Dec 2013, 7:26 pm

puddingmouse wrote:
Magneto wrote:
Still, I can say that I haven't really heard anyone treat women as being less than men.


I have quite a lot, unfortunately.

Puddingmouse, you could give me an honest answer. Why do some feminists think chivalry is another tool of chauvinism? I agree with you there is a lot of disrespect for women in the world. I don't want to brag about being all goody goody either. But really, why do some women do this? Do they not trust us we are trying to be nice?


_________________
comedic burp


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

08 Dec 2013, 7:45 pm

Have you heard of ambivalent sexism? People who believe that women have a special need to be protected don't consider themselves sexist because they adore women. That generalization is sexist, in that it places all women in a particular category rather than seeing them each as individual people. Subtyping, or putting specific kinds of women into a different category, is a marginally more sophisticated form of stereotyping.

Ambivalent sexism, as the name implies, includes another side, whereby people who need protection cannot have complete freedom to make their own decisions. Anyone who would try must obviously be disciplined by their protector.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

08 Dec 2013, 7:47 pm

appletheclown wrote:
puddingmouse wrote:
Magneto wrote:
Still, I can say that I haven't really heard anyone treat women as being less than men.


I have quite a lot, unfortunately.

Puddingmouse, you could give me an honest answer. Why do some feminists think chivalry is another tool of chauvinism? I agree with you there is a lot of disrespect for women in the world. I don't want to brag about being all goody goody either. But really, why do some women do this? Do they not trust us we are trying to be nice?


I don't really think about chivalry because I have bigger fish to fry. It has lost its meaning in the modern world and is now an affectation; therefore it is now harmless.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

08 Dec 2013, 7:54 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Have you heard of ambivalent sexism? People who believe that women have a special need to be protected don't consider themselves sexist because they adore women. That generalization is sexist, in that it places all women in a particular category rather than seeing them each as individual people. Subtyping, or putting specific kinds of women into a different category, is a marginally more sophisticated form of stereotyping.

Ambivalent sexism, as the name implies, includes another side, whereby people who need protection cannot have complete freedom to make their own decisions. Anyone who would try must obviously be disciplined by their protector.


I agree with you.

I am more focused on those who are unambivalently sexist. With the ambivalent sexists, I try to set a good example in that I treat everyone as an individual and I try to put across my individuality as opposed to acting according to stereotypes.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

08 Dec 2013, 8:00 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Have you heard of ambivalent sexism? People who believe that women have a special need to be protected don't consider themselves sexist because they adore women. That generalization is sexist, in that it places all women in a particular category rather than seeing them each as individual people. Subtyping, or putting specific kinds of women into a different category, is a marginally more sophisticated form of stereotyping.

Ambivalent sexism, as the name implies, includes another side, whereby people who need protection cannot have complete freedom to make their own decisions. Anyone who would try must obviously be disciplined by their protector.

Says the cat who is talking to a guy who thinks stay at homes dads are cool! I have a total crush on this one lady that I sparred with in mma class. If she would have initiated anything, I would have fainted! It is sexist to put women at an advantage? Women are not men, men are not women. That is why when you see a woman in need, or a man for that matter, you help them. I rather be generalized as a weak, helpless man than be in a situation like that.


_________________
comedic burp


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

08 Dec 2013, 8:51 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tQSOlF9ZZM[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

08 Dec 2013, 8:53 pm

How about this, then: Generalizing about people becomes, or tends to become, treating individual people as though they personally embody the qualities attributed to the general category.

Even if a person is weak or has a weakness, they would usually prefer that other people accord them the respect of asking whether they want help. For example, I have some difficulties in social situations, but I'd usually prefer to handle them myself rather than having someone fuss over me. I certainly don't want to be treated like a generalized Aspie. I'm J.R., thank you very much.

As far as holding doors goes, my favorite situation is when I hold one of a set of double doors for someone, and then they hold the next one for me. I might open a car door for a person to let him or her get into my car, but I don't know how I'd handle someone who sat helplessly and waited for me to come around and open it once we arrived at our destination.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,729
Location: USA

08 Dec 2013, 10:08 pm

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


It extends well beyond religion, pretty sure it was in the culture before there even was religion.


_________________
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


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Dec 2013, 5:02 am

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


It extends well beyond religion, pretty sure it was in the culture before there even was religion.



It's not always so simple to separate culture from religion.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,729
Location: USA

09 Dec 2013, 5:55 am

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


It extends well beyond religion, pretty sure it was in the culture before there even was religion.



It's not always so simple to separate culture from religion.


Except it's pretty easy to do so in this case:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/201 ... -list-too/


_________________
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


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Dec 2013, 6:26 am

Feel free to look up non sequitur when you have the time.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,034

09 Dec 2013, 7:14 am

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 the state must be destroyed.

http://needsmoremarshmallows.blogspot.co.uk/


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Dec 2013, 7:23 am

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?

Also, Judaism is not equal to atheism.



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

09 Dec 2013, 7:51 am

91 wrote:
LKL wrote:
It is Raven stealing the sun. Completely different part of the country.

'Chivalry' isn't as nice or as helpful as men seem to think that it is; men and women hold the door for me all the time (and I hold the door for other people), and it's never creepy unless they do it in a 'chivalrous' manner (i.e., blatantly with the motivation that 'I am a man and you are a woman, and that fact is so much more important than any other aspect of this situation, including the logistics of our relative positions with respect to the door, that I must hold this door for you'). Chivalry is based on the idea that women are somehow 'other,' and usually a type of other that is less capable of anything and everything, be it mental, physical, technical, or whatever.


I don't know about that. My partner and I have a rather modern and traditional relationship. I am quite old fashioned in terms of my behaviour towards her. Holding doors open and standing when she leaves the table. However, we are both quite modern, she out earns me by a substantial margin, at least for the moment, and is a highly educated woman. We have been together five years and are an interracial couple. Chivalry is not threatening, I see it is an expression of respect that is particular to my gender. Just as she has methods of expressing her respect of me in ways that are particular to her gender. The assumption inherent in treating those facts as a negative is that the roles are seen as universal negatives, in and of themselves. I just don't see that.


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. Or that typical "Helping into the jacket." part. -.- When we decide to go, I simply dont think about it, so I simply go to the wardrobe, take my jacket and pull it on. My mother in law actually accused my partner, of me doing so, because of him not offering the jacket for me, which I think is ridiculous. If you both feel fine with it, then do it and its a nice gesture. But if it feels annoying for one of it, as it is for me, because of me not being used to it, then I dont see nothing bad about not doing so as well.

Chivalry means for me "caring to be nice and polite to people" = caring for things they like. Not caring for things, they dont even think about. ^^ But insisting that woman have to like to get helped into their jacket, is for me, as if I would insist that every man must be happy, if I gift him with entrance cards for a football game. ^^



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,729
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