What really pisses me off about sexism and gender equality

I am not harming your Way. If the statement seems cliché then I am sorry. Perhaps natural is cliché....

Humanity has always tried to find ways to be, man. If that being requires other like minds to reach fulfillment then let it do what it must.

 

you should be making big bucks off your talking tortoise.

 

He doesn't wish to be known. Donations are welcome though

 

hehe I was thinking that too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMR53zHrdzg"]Johnny Cash on The Simpsons as the coyote. - YouTube

 

Notice my references didn't point to differences between men and women but humans in general. The lines of gender are blurred with sexual preference, transgender and undiscovered identity. I view "gender equality" in the US as petty. Treat people the way you would like to be treated regardless of sex, creed, or financial status.

I think OP has a generally negative and disposition, which is why I got into this into the first place. It's funny he whines about women but he exhibits plenty of missteps of his own. OP you're not perfect, who are you to judge women as a whole. If you want to throw feminism around like a dirty word because a person tries to establish a minimum of civility, fine. But don't complain later when she treats you like the tiny prick that you are.

 

Fair enough. It was mere hyperbole.

 

No, I did see what you were trying to do. I also saw the quoted text and understand why you responded the way you did. I just felt it was off-topic because the OP's original post (the first post of this entire thread) seemed to address more cultural views of gender roles, and later on in the thread it became a nature VS nurture debate and THEN genetics started becoming a main focus of the conversation.

It felt that when you talked about violent criminals, it was going off on a tangent, because at that point we're beginning to describe a niche of society, especially since the broader context was gender roles.

Generally, I do agree with your view that the OP is wrong about biology having "little" influence on personality.

I never made any such claims to know what goes on inside a woman's head, so I don't know where this is coming from or why you aimed this comment at me.

 

I think that actual feminists probably would be more likely to ask a guy out, because they're more likely to challenge the stereotype... but they're not just going to ask you out for being a guy. But feminism has changed the dynamic-- a lot of men are more afraid to make the first move and a lot of women still think they need to find a husband who will provide for them and protect them even though they should be able to do it themselves.

There isn't a consistent agreement between everyone who identifies as a feminist, so you get people who are reasonable and interested in issues that should be addressed, and then you have the extreme 'bitter lesbian' types who just want to blame men for everything.

I think the bottom line is that we're in a transition period and nobody knows what they're supposed to do.

 

Umm..

No shit?

 

Then you have the ones who aren't bitter at all. They just blame men for everything because Cosmopolitan magazine told them to. It's science, see...women are more mature than men.

And they are happy to game the system and be fragile when convenient; strong and independent when convenient.

That's the type of feminist most guys miss, because they are too busy paying attention to the butch lesbian types who couldn't get a date even if they wanted.

 

Chivalry was sexist crap. Being polite and kind is what they call it now, but what constitutes as politeness should not be taken for granted. What you call a privilege, has always been more like an obligation for a male, and what I call a privilege for female has likely felt like an obligation to you. So what we owe each other is to let go of patriarchal stereotypes about men as much as the women too. I am not threatened in the least at the idea of a woman of higher intellect than me, I accept that it's true, but at the same time I bet I could find plenty who'd make me feel like a scholar.

Both sexes should be able to do it yes. Both sexes should be able to choose not to take that path and not be judged differently based on their sex. If I'm the type who needs a strong lead to compliment me, I should have a reasonable chance as a guy to find a girl who I can depend on in those ways. As things are, I'm expected to be at least on par with her as the dominant figure if not the upper hand.

I'd think if women were interested in better partners, they would be the ones to take the men they fancy out (of course by first asking him out) instead of picking between which horn-dog that fell into her lap is the most promising of the lot.

Actually yeah, that's fair to say. Plenty of people die from cancer who've never smoked a thing in their life. Lung cancer, no less. Lung cancer from cigarettes is actually not a "rule". Cigarettes behave as a trigger that interacts with a predisposition towards developing lung cancer. Note that not everyone has that same predisposition. Cigarettes do not really cause cancer. There are so many things that can happen to your body, even throughout your life that can increase the likely hood of cancer developing, cigarettes are just one risk and only for some people.

 

You are correct, saying something like cigarettes cause cancer isnt actually true, Cancer is the mutation of cells, Carcinogens dont become mutagens until the cells are mutable

The number one cause and risk factor for cancer is always going to be ageing, theres a big jump in cancer related deaths that starts at 50, at its highest around 65- this happens chiefly because half of us have shitty genes that mean our cells are going to go haywire

Dont smoke, smoking kills is an easy sell, cos it stinks and its something we can see. But if your government run an ad campaign saying - well half of you have below average genes and are going to die of cancer anyway, theres fuck all you govenment can do for you, if you dont smoke you might not die of lung cancer at 63, but probably just die of another form 3 years later - that campaign wont go down very well, even though its closer to the truth

Mistruths of context and perception, what people want to be true along with what gets the most attention. When it comes to diet and exercise people just dont want to listen

Its worthwhile searching through the web, hunting down all those stats of what people die of, and more importantly when, so you get a far better picture of the truth.

And not just on cancer or illness related deaths, but subjects more inline with this thread. The homicide /suicide rate for males the world over is usually 3 to 4 times what it is for females, not just in developed countries but all those impoverished war torn countries. We see shitty stuff like Syria and Somalia, women and childen are more vulneable, so we assume they are dying at the same rate, shitty stuff happens to them, and they are more likely to end up homeless or displaced, but they are also far less likely than males to end up dead

 

Other than wanting to be wooed, what priveledges to the ladies have over you fine men?

Quit bitching. Wait for a chick that will do that. and make that intention clear, or you'll just come off as a douchebag. Make it mutual, since you want everyone to be be equals...

She's not courting you because you're not an "ambitious go-getter". Not cuz you're male. We don't like lazy douchebags.

...I assume for everyone's sake you say "our" as in everyone.

Wait a second, that's not our fault. PLENTY of women would be PLENTY willing to sign their lives away, and plenty of women do. Plenty of women WOULD lose their lives and WOULD lead if they were allowed to be on the front line. They keep women from it because we can only get pregnant so often. You guys can impregnate many more than that in a given time. They want us baby makers

This happens now...

They can. You just have to do it. Fuck society's implications.

 

According to you, those things don't exist because they aren't applicable to every single individual. No generalization is ever possible.

Perhaps, I shouldn't ever flag a yellow cab in Manhattan, because some of them happen to be undercover cops posing as cab drivers.

You can't generalize, you see...

Likewise, I shouldn't ever walk into Wendy's assuming they'd have a chocolate smoothie because maybe, just maybe, they've changed their menu. A strip club is as likely to have a chocolate smoothie as a Wendy's in your little bubble.

Who knows? Maybe a car repair shop will carry smoothies. Maybe a home for the elderly...

Why bother going to Wendy's?

Finally, everyone should stop wearing condoms since one woman in Africa was found to be immune to AIDS. Don't even get me started on seat belts...

 

So, the premise of the original post is, women and feminism suck because of patriarchal beliefs and systems imposed on society by men?

Got it.

And the reason why women don't 'court you' is because society, MALE CONTROLLED society and cultural norms, teach women they are supposed to be passive, and never take the initiative, never ask out a man but just wait around for him to make the first move, while men are expected to be assertive. When a woman shows assertiveness and ambition, she is regarded as a bitch and a ball buster. (look at the way female politicians are treated compared to male ones, for showing the same assertiveness, for example).

A woman who 'makes the first move', is the one who initiates a relationship or sexual encounter, is considered an aberration. It's a turn-off, and she is regarded as a slut by that male-dominated society that requires women to be passive. That same expectation of passivity is why age of consent laws exist, and inherently treat all men as potential rapists and predators. Because the patriarchal nature of society devalues female sexuality, regarding women as fragile and sexless.

Feminists have spent the last 50 years or so fighting against those same double-standards, ones again imposed by a male-dominated society.

But, of course women suck because of it, right?

And that couldn't POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with the fact that it's MEN that want to keep women out of the military, don't want women in combat, expect women to be stay-at-home mothers and the men to the breadwinners, could it? Nah.

All these stereotypes that have been around for centuries MUST be the result of damn feminists.

It's not like feminists worked tirelessly for decades just to allow women to enter the military, after all, and are continuing to work to make things more equitable within it.

It's not like it took a court case to get the Citadel, military college in South Carolina, to finally admit women. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the first woman to attend the Citadel was harassed and hazed to the point that she wound up in the infirmary on the first day, and quit less than a week later because of it (to her male classmate's celebrations). It has nothing to do with the fact that women in the Citadel continue to face harassment, and almost 20% report being raped. It's all those damn women's fault that men's egos are threatened by them and that they aren't treated fairly, right?

(Just as an aside, historically men HAVE been more expendable than women, for good reason: Women give birth to children. One man can impregnate dozens of women, but a single woman can only give birth to one man's child at a time, and can only have one child, or a pair of twins, in a 12 month period. Half the men in a giving society being killed off would not be as detrimental to the gene pool as half the women dying would. It's only recent, with the development of in vitro fertilization and the like, that this has not been the case. It's not fair, but it does have a biological basis.)

Women have been fighting for decades to correct every one of the imbalances and double standards you mentioned. Imbalances and double standards, again, imposed by a hetero-normative, male-oriented society. But, it's all our fault, right?

That's kinda the point of feminism. That a society that is controlled by one gender is unfair to BOTH genders. Men are as much victims of a patriarchal, male-dominated society as women are. Men are trapped in artificial roles, expected to be a certain way, to conform to a certain definition of masculinity imposed by that very society, just as women are. That's something feminism has been pointing out for decades. That's not women's fault. It's men who buy into said society, and then whine and blame women for the very society they bought into.

 

I like where this is going

 

On a another note, women are still paid less than men, even when women are the primary breadwinner in families with children. Having children lowers a woman's pay and raises a man's.

Oh, and I'd like to go topless in public with the stares.

Until that one happens your argument is out the window. :toetap05:

 

Proud to say women can go topless in public in NYC, we can also tan topless on rooftops if we like. Only stipulation, is that the zone has to be owned by the city.

There is a woman who has exercised her right and been arrested more times than she can probably count. She just won a lawsuit against the city ($40k judgement) for being detained unlawfully! Woot!

And yes you're right overall more cities should accept topless women.

What about the fact that we can't even breast feed in public? And that should be a gender specific role that is allocated to us yet has been taken away. Unfair.

 

A women breast fed on the bus today! I'd never seen it before. She was so quiet and inconspicuous, no one had a problem.

 

Thats awesome You know pictures of breastfeeding isn't allowed on Facebook apparently it's deemed "offensive".