Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood?
Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? This thread is 31 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · NEXT»
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 04:16 PM
Edited by JeremiahEmo at 16:19, 13 Jul 2014.

Did Feminists Lied About/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood?

Hi guys, I just came from the Heroes 6 forum and we've been into a heated argument. I was advised by our good mod Elvin to transfer the discussion here. And so I shall.

Topic is self explanatory in the thread title. Did Feminists Lied and Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? I can say that some of them were over exageration and some of them were outright lies (like ALL women were not allowed to own properties). Anyway, you'll find more information in my quote below.

Sorry if the quote is like "in the middle of the discussion". I'm too lazy to rephrase it. If you want to get the full grasp of the argument, you can visit this thread:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=40304&pagenumber=4
But be warned, Elvin's gonna delete it soon.

In bold are the topics. You can add some topics if you like.

JeremiahEmo said:

~Draft and Voting~
Wait, poor white men were not drafted? Where did you get that? Give me some citations please. And I used the Civil War because that was the first instance wherein men were drafted.

And I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear. Let me explain it as clear as I can possibly could:

Before the draft, NOT everyone can vote. Only the ones that owned property can vote. Women can vote too as said in the wikipedia article I've given you. The only requirement is that they own property (just like men).
When the men were drafted, and you know, being drafted is against your own will and that you are risking your life for your country for it. It would be unfair if you die for your country and not have a say on who will run it right? So that's why the government extended the vote to most white man.
And that is why I said MEN PAID THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE WITH BLOOD while women got their rights to vote because it was handed to them in a silver platter. Not really oppressed now is it?


Again, I'm all for both sexes having the rights to vote especially in this era where both sexes are contributing to our country economically. But to undermine what men has gone through in history and make women look like the victims (even if it's not true at all) is like lying to what really happened.


Also, there might be some men who didn't shed blood to earn their rights to vote. The point is that it's a man thing. More than a sufficient number of men experienced this. And yes, the draft is exclusively a male problem. You get my point?

~Women Not Owning Properties~
Ok, so MARRIED women were not allowed to own properties. That doesn't mean it's all women like you said.
Basically, back in the days, there are pros and cons to every decision. This includes, if you're a woman and you want to get married and lose the rights to own properties or you don't get married and own a property.  See, you can't eat a cake expect it to still be there. You get my analogy? It's not like the draft wherein you have no choice at all.
Is it unfair? Maybe for women, if you look at it individually. If you look at history as a whole, everyone had s.hitty life back then. And I highly DO NOT believe women had it worst. It's not an opinion actually, it's a clear cut fact. At least, for someone who's not power hungry.


~Father/Husband Taking Care of Daughter/Wife~
Arguing this is really difficult since we have no statistics about how much of the daughters and wives were abused by their husbands and fathers but I tell you this.
Chivalry is a popular thing in the middle ages. Up until now too. That alone proves that society encourages men to be nice to their "property" (as you call it). Plus there was a law imposed by Teddy Roosevelt to punish men who abused their wives.


~Quiet and Submissive~
Of course, being quiet and submissive doesn't guarantee an easy-going lifestyle. But, I'd rather have that over men's societal expectations because it takes the pressure off of people like me who don't want to be firm and aggressive. Hey, personal preference.
You see my point? I just proved your point about "it punishes expressing preference" wrong. Well, it is correct technically but the point of this argument is if it's a woman problem or not. And I just proved that it's not.

~Women Discouraged to Get Manly Jobs~
Yes, I agree. Two wrong things doesn't make it right. But the point of this argument is if it's a problem exclusively for women. Let me just remind you that.
Higher paying and respectable jobs? The most high paying and respectable job I know in the middle ages and the classical age was being in the battlefield. I highly doubt women wants to be in the battlefield. Now there are a few exceptions such as Joan of Arc and Boudicca (and the stereotyping didn't stop them) but majority of the women doesn't want that.
Post-Renaissance. Hmmm... I think you mean the ones that require extensive physical labor here?? If so, I highly doubt women wants those types of jobs. Again, it's based on choice. Elaborate further if you want to continue this part of the discussion.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 04:29 PM

lol it's not just women, you always find people who need to whine because their ancesters were victimized in a long away past. we always hear some people talk about victimized black people or victimized jews for example.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 04:35 PM

I think you got to be blind if you don't see that there's structures pushing people into gender roles, restricting their individual emancipation.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 04:45 PM

Yes Fauch, that's correct.

Xerox, that's correct too but there are gender roles on both gender. I don't really think being a woman is as bad as feminists say it is. At least, compared to being a man.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2014 04:48 PM

Since the historical specifics vary from country to country and region to region, I won't be getting into any details but basically your position and the things you cherry-pick can be summed up as "hey, gender discrimination is a lie, men and women are treated equally and they had been treated like that since the dawn of time" which is not even funny. Before 20th century, women were seen inferior almost anywhere to some degree (and not to a little degree), customs described as chivalry only apply to aristocrats and aristocrats also had very strict rules in favor of men when it came to inheritance of land or family business, pulling a chair for someone doesn't mean you see her as your equal. Besides, it's not just what's on paper but about social norms and social norms STILL has a lot of way to go when it comes to equality.

You may be reacting to some overexecuted practice of feminism in specific but as of now, the way you are doing it is like saying the Holocaust never happened because you don't approve of Israeli politics. It's just twisting or ignoring a lot of historical facts which are as big as an elephant.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 04:58 PM

Xerox means that you are homosexual but society pushes you into being hetero

I think the bigger involvement of women in economy after the feminist movements of the sixties was a regression. it was probably a gain for companies, as it created unemployment and allowed to pull down salaries. women probably contributed more to society by staying away from economic life, and I mean, away from the grip of companies. though I don't know if women having massively entered the economic life is the main reason why companies have so much power now and all their demands seem to have to be met at the expenses of workers.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 13, 2014 05:03 PM
Edited by DagothGares at 17:25, 13 Jul 2014.

Pearls before swine, but:

Quote:
Chivalry is a popular thing in the middle ages. Up until now too. That alone proves that society encourages men to be nice to their "property" (as you call it). Plus there was a law imposed by Teddy Roosevelt to punish men who abused their wives.


The traditional idea of chivalry where men are supposed to very gentle and protective of women is a post-crusades ideal. You can see it in medieval texts that predate the crusades. You had men beating their own women who weren't necessarily portrayed as villians or they weren't villains, because they beat their own women, but because they tried to rise past their feudal station (by trying to become king or take money from the rich or whatever.)

Arthurian legends are considered to be first examples of chivalry where one was just supposed to protect women and only villains disrespected them. Gawain beat up this knight who kidnapped women and brought her home etc etc etc. This has been explained to me as a muslim influence from the crusades were women were still property, but a good/ strong/ sophisticated man would not beat them. In late medieval times you even find stories with women as protagonists.

Anyway, judging from my education, as I have explained above, women were treated as property and beaten for a considerable time. Obviously not all women, but from the time of say 200 AD - 1100 AD people didn't care much. At least, your average joe didn't and your fief lord definitely didn't since he may have been beating up his wife anyway.

EDIT: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THIS WAS EXCLUSIVELY ABOUT THE MEDIEVAL ERA IN EUROPE, BUT AS I GOT FURTHER IN I REALISED IT WAS ABOUT ALL TIMES AND ALL PLACES, SO I WILL JUST ADD THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE OPPRESSION AT OTHER TIMES AND OTHER CULTURES AND I THINK THE MODERN ERA IS STILL NOT AS KIND AS IT IS TO WOMEN AS IT IS TO MEN ANYWHERE REGARDLESS, EXCEPT MAYBE GERMANY OR SOMETHING.

Quote:
Higher paying and respectable jobs? The most high paying and respectable job I know in the middle ages and the classical age was being in the battlefield.


War time is the least prosperous time of all. The best-paying job in the feudal era was being a feudal lord (Feudal ladies not allowed, this isn't fantasy land). In the late medieval era, the best-paying jobs were Bell-making, Smithing (gold and quality metal) and OF COURSE trading. Just like now, jobs with a lot of financial risk and jobs that have high technical knowledge requirement pay the most, excluding jobs where you just take money from people (government jobs/ being a feudal lord or clerical member).

Women weren't allowed in the guilds, so they were excluded from climbing socially and were dependent on their husband or family. Which was true regardless since they usually were property anyway.

Mercenary commanders that survived for long/ earned a lot were few and far between (I think the only exception is like what? Italian and Swiss companies?) Almost all big battlefield commanders were feudal lords and they didn't make money commanding armies. They made money being feudal lords so they could field these armies for their fief lord (usually a king, but sometimes emperor or a big duke).

Quote:
Post-Renaissance. Hmmm... I think you mean the ones that require extensive physical labor here?
Physical and menial labor has always been least-paying post-prehistoric times done by slaves or serfs or the proletariat. The highest paying positions are always for people with technical skill, the owners and people willing to take big financial risks (these three things tend to overlap.) Women often were excluded from an education/ did not get involved in the family business, so they couldn't really get out and on their way, regardless.

Quote:
Of course, being quiet and submissive doesn't guarantee an easy-going lifestyle. But, I'd rather have that over men's societal expectations because it takes the pressure off of people like me who don't want to be firm and aggressive. Hey, personal preference.
The better argument to make is that society demands more from men in terms of values. Women can just be loyal/ not mean. Men need to be stoic, strong, confident and active. I guess some people are afraid of women that don't need someone to be those things for them, but they're just dumb. Traditionally, masculine values are more demanding. They're not easy to uphold. I think it would be healthier if we, as a society, held similar expectations towards women or stopped having them towards men and just started having them towards "good people."

Expecting people to be "a japanese house wife" I consider to be a bad thing, regardless.

Quote:
s it unfair? Maybe for women, if you look at it individually. If you look at history as a whole, everyone had s.hitty life back then. And I highly DO NOT believe women had it worst. It's not an opinion actually, it's a clear cut fact. At least, for someone who's not power hungry.
While men may die in wars, women of subjugated areas often face far worse things than death. Either way, it doesn't excuse women from being excluded of ownership in society and wars always suck for everyone. no need to make it seem as if one part from the same society is suffering more nobly than the other, since war is a terrible thing always based on injustice anyway. Also, keep in mind, a large portion of the workers in medieval times were never drafted. You needed the farms fully manned if you wanted to survive the next winter, after all.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2014 05:25 PM
Edited by artu at 17:29, 13 Jul 2014.

Quote:
This has been explained to me as a muslim influence from the crusades were women were still property, but a good/ strong/ sophisticated man would not beat them. In late medieval times you even find stories with women as protagonists.

Although there are some differences (for example, I remember reading the quoted journals of an Ottoman Muslim in France during 17th century, shocked by the custom that French aristocrats allow their women to dance with other men in balls), before 19th century, there is not much drastic difference regarding the way women are treated between Muslims and Christians. There are women protagonists in Muslim folklore and there are also exceptional figures that can be considered as figures of authority or individualism, dating back to the time of Muhammed. The first Sunni and Shiite conflict dates back to Ayse (wife of Muhhammed) and Ali (son-in-law) claiming the right to rule. The thing is, wealthy and aristocratic daughters (especially if they are an only-child) of landlords do not change the fact that women in general were oppressed, Christian or Muslim. Think of today, a Saudi princess is not the person to pick if you want to observe how Saudi women are treated in general, is she? Nor is Queen Elizabeth an example of how women were treated in 16th century England.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted July 13, 2014 05:36 PM
Edited by DagothGares at 17:37, 13 Jul 2014.

I think serfs got along okay back in those times, since all marriages were arranged, so everyone sort of knew what to expect: hard physical labor, children, church, medieval parties and being pressed to serve in the army. Though, I admit a female serf has no protection from beatings from her husband, except the village judging you a little and the woman's family, which isn't much. Otherwise I don't know. I believe serfs weren't harsh against each other all of the time, neither do I think they were nice to each other all the time.

I still think women are oppressed to this day, so you don't need to convince me about anything. I was just commenting on historical trivia I knew about, like western european nobility beating their wives in the dark ages, until things got a bit more developped there.

EDIT: a bit more developped by slaughtering people afterwards.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 06:44 PM

Thanks DagothGares. While you have enlightened me about women's suffering in the middle ages, you also gave me a very good argument to combat those atheists frowning on the Bible because of slavery. I mean, I'm not a Christian but I always love to slam atheists' popular mantra "but the Bible encourages slavery", you know what I mean?


Anyway, enough about that. Yeah, men and women have both suffered in different parts around the world and different times. We can all agree on that.

So let's trim down the argument here. Did feminists made it worst than it has always been? I say yes. Ok, let's focus on the US starting now.
Why? Because you have Saudi Arabia but are the feminists doing something about that? No. I don't think so. What they're focusing on is only the white countries. Specifically, their own.

So guys, this is the question:
Did feminists made female victimhood in the US worst than it has always been? Why?


And Dagoth, you said you believe women are still oppressed to this day. In the US, do you believe so? Why?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2014 07:15 PM

There are gender equality issues around the world (including the US) and there are many sects of feminism opposed to it. Some may be wrong in their methods or suggestions to oppose that inequality but the bottom line is, they are not exaggerating the historical and although not as harsh as the previous centuries, still on-going existence of the inequality itself. Of course, the activists will mainly focus on their own country, wherever that is, because that's where they'll have the chance to change things most and where they will first-hand witness the issues and most importantly, where they will spend their frigging lives. And it would be quite ironic of you to blame the feminists for not only focusing on Middle Eastern or African countries but instead the "white" ones because the difference you happen to admit mainly exists due to THEIR struggle in the past, which seems to annoy you, when it is in the present.


(Btw, the Bible is a product of its time just like any other book, if an atheist mentions how it enables slavery, it is probably to emphasize the historicity of it (as opposed to God's eternal and timeless truth), not to claim the Bible invented slavery. I'll have to say your slamming skills are quite ladylike for someone who claims to uphold the flag for good-old macho manliness against feminism.)



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 07:32 PM

artu said:
There are gender equality issues around the world (including the US) and there are many sects of feminism opposed to it. Some may be wrong in their methods or suggestions to oppose that inequality but the bottom line is, they are not exaggerating the historical and although not as harsh as the previous centuries, still on-going existence of the inequality itself. Of course, the activists will mainly focus on their own country, wherever that is, because that's where they'll have the chance to change things most and where they will first-hand witness the issues and most importantly, where they will spend their frigging lives. And it would be quite ironic of you to blame the feminists for not only focusing on Middle Eastern or African countries but instead the "white" ones because the difference you happen to admit mainly exists due to THEIR struggle in the past, which seems to annoy you, when it is in the present.


(Btw, the Bible is a product of its time just like any other book, if an atheist mentions how it enables slavery, it is probably to emphasize the historicity of it (as opposed to God's eternal and timeless truth), not to claim the Bible invented slavery. I'll have to say your slamming skills are quite ladylike for someone who claims to uphold the flag for good-old macho manliness against feminism.)




First off, can you site any exclusively female problems at present in the US?
Also, give me your thoughts on this. Is it worst than men's?

What can you say about the sexism against men nowadays? Is it worst than women's? Is sexism against women worst than men's for the past 100 years? Of course, we're talking about the US.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2014 07:50 PM
Edited by artu at 19:57, 13 Jul 2014.

Basically, if you take a statistic of people in key positions regarding politicians, businessmen, high management etc etc... It will still be mostly men. Arts and science seem to suffer less from that, at least nowadays.

Of course, these are not problems of the same magnitude as in times where they cant vote or own property. But think of it this way, if you go back 300 years you will find dramatically less women writers, artists, philosophers, scientists etc etc... Not non-existent but significantly less, in some areas, especially in areas regarding political power, this situation has not changed much. I see the US senate on TV, it's still mostly men. I'm not saying it should always be 50/50, but there is a pattern that exceeds that.

This can be explained by two different ways.
1- The social norms and conditions lead to that.
2- There is an ontological difference between men and women that causes women to be less successful.

Feminists are the people who reject the second argument and focus on changing the first one.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 08:05 PM

Dang it. Forget about that, my internet subscription is running out. Sigh. Anyway, let me just drop one big bomb before I leave.


While I do appreciate feminists breaking the gender roles, thus allowing me to be myself. Cause, it would be hard for me to be the traditional male.

My criticism of feminists is, first things first, what activated them.
They really didn't snap because of oppression, they snapped because they were jealous of men. White women, oppressed in the US as a gender and was far more oppressed than men? Please.

Here's my explanation: Feminists only look at the good side of being a man. Such as, the good jobs, more rights, etc but
did they even push for women to have more obligations? (like how a man is obligated to his wife and family?). no, I don't think so.
Did they push for women to register for the draft? not a single word.
Did they ask women to have equal sentence time in prison? (for those who doesn't know, women serve 40% less sentence time as men do)
They were jealous of men getting the rights to vote, forgetting the fact that men generally died to earned their rights to vote. They didn't shed a single blood for their rights to vote but rather, it was handed to them by a silver platter.
did they make family court cases equal to both gender? Here, I'm talking about the child always going to the mother regardless if she's the best parent or not.


And oh yes, speaking of obligations, women aren't really that oppressed in the Middle East. I mean yeah sure, they're "properties" of their fathers/husbands but the father/husband is also obligated to them. Like kids. The husband is supposed to look after his family. He is responsible for them. Every money he earns should be spent on his family. Every property he has is the family's property. The wife however, or the daughter, whatever property she acquires, it is her own. She doesn't need to share it to her family member. I don't know if it's like this in the past but this is the law in the Middle East now. I forgot which country it is. I think it's Saudi Arabia? I forgot.
Still, this proves my point that feminists make every female oppression as bad as it really is. Sometimes, they outright lie.

I also heard that they lied about the rape statistics but I have yet to prove that. No, not now. My internet is gonna die soon.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 08:08 PM

or 3 : women are less interested in those positions?
politics don't seem to attract many women for example, maybe they are less interested in power? it is said that women are more caring than men.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 08:15 PM

Quote:
And oh yes, speaking of obligations, women aren't really that oppressed in the Middle East. I mean yeah sure, they're "properties" of their fathers/husbands but the father/husband is also obligated to them. Like kids. The husband is supposed to look after his family. He is responsible for them.


Yeah, how lovely that must be.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JeremiahEmo
JeremiahEmo


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
posted July 13, 2014 08:20 PM

artu said:
Basically, if you take a statistic of people in key positions regarding politicians, businessmen, high management etc etc... It will still be mostly men. Arts and science seem to suffer less from that, at least nowadays.

Of course, these are not problems of the same magnitude as in times where they cant vote or own property. But think of it this way, if you go back 300 years you will find dramatically less women writers, artists, philosophers, scientists etc etc... Not non-existent but significantly less, in some areas, especially in areas regarding political power, this situation has not changed much. I see the US senate on TV, it's still mostly men. I'm not saying it should always be 50/50, but there is a pattern that exceeds that.

This can be explained by two different ways.
1- The social norms and conditions lead to that.
2- There is an ontological difference between men and women that causes women to be less successful.

Feminists are the people who reject the second argument and focus on changing the first one.



I don't think it has anything to do with the social norm conditioning people.

I think it's a combination of:
1. Personal Choice - men usually go for high paying jobs. Men are likely to focus on his career while women are likely to have a balanced lifestyle with her family and all.
2. Qualifications/Experience/How well you've convinced your interviewer that you're the best person for the job (if you're looking for the job) or how well you've convinced your employer that you're the best person to promote (if you're already in the job)

oh and I'm glad you didn't bring up the inevitable pay gap. It has been debunked over and over and over again but feminists still bring it up. I'm tired of it by the way. Like if you mention the word pay gap, I will literally puke. LoL. Just kidding.


And lastly, there was a study by a Norwegian (or was he Swedish?) proving that men and women are born differently.
An example was they made an experiment. Which toy will a baby choose? There were a lot of babies by the way. Boys are likely to choose trucks and manly toys while girls are likely to choose dolls and all those girly toys. Of course, there are some exceptions but what's driving this is the level of testosterone. So yeah, it's not the conditioning as feminists said. It's more of biology and evolution.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JoonasTo
JoonasTo


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted July 13, 2014 08:34 PM


____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted July 13, 2014 08:36 PM

Quote:
or 3 : women are less interested in those positions?

That would be part of the ontological argument, not a separate number 3.
Quote:
And lastly, there was a study by a Norwegian (or was he Swedish?) proving that men and women are born differently.
An example was they made an experiment. Which toy will a baby choose? There were a lot of babies by the way. Boys are likely to choose trucks and manly toys while girls are likely to choose dolls and all those girly toys. Of course, there are some exceptions but what's driving this is the level of testosterone. So yeah, it's not the conditioning as feminists said. It's more of biology and evolution.

I am very well aware of the biological/neurological differences between men and women. That is not an excuse to re-establish the flaws of a system in which it is harder for a woman to become a doctor or a senator. These choices are not things that are only determined by our biological needs. Some time ago, they'd say the same thing for a woman who wants to be an actress, that it was not their place, men used to play women roles in the theater. Turns out they can act pretty well despite all the neurological and biological differences, can't they?

Quote:
White women, oppressed in the US as a gender and was far more oppressed than men? Please.

I suggest you to watch Mad Men (fictional but very realistic show when it comes to the period's norms and atmosphere) to see how was the working conditions for women even back in the 60's, the decade of sexual revolution.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 13, 2014 08:42 PM

These choices you mention, Jeremiah, are strongly influenced by social norms.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 31 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1056 seconds