Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part. Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less manly or gender-neutral because of that. As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

And yet, we all know people of each gender who are the opposite of those things. e.g. not all women are submissive, not all men are dominant. some women are attuned to other people's feelings, yet some women are completely oblivious, worse than any man. As for caring: if you look up the stats for unilateral abuse, many crime surveys say more women do that than men, because women know the man won't hit back. If you've never heard of an abusive woman, you've lived a very sheltered life.

As for "grace", both the times in my life where I've had to don protective gear to clean out a filthy pig stye of a bedroom after a disgusting room-mate moved out, with filthy mouldy plates etc in them - they were both from women. And then you have Sean Connery. I rest my case.

It's as ridiculous as saying "men are naturally taller than women, a woman has no business competing with a man in height". Your problem is your citing averages, then saying that they should apply to ALL women and ALL men.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Good to see this thread is useful for transitioning people. Much better than debates.

Speaking of debates, when I spoke of personal feces, I meant this: "Prepare for a debate of the ages, ye of outdated gender role enforcements! You have challenged the master of argument Dozebom Lolumzalis! Make your responsorial statement!"

But in retrospect, I don't have dibs on refutations, so it's inevitable that somebody might get to it before I do.

[alexandertnt]

And yet, we all know people of each gender who are the opposite of those things

Yes, but those people are only like that because of the evil, culture destroying feminists! Now let me tell you how Tumblr has destroyed our culture.

the differences don't vanish because you said so

They don't suddenly exist the way you want them to just because you say so either.

Times change, just because things are different doesn't make them worse (No, our culture is not a disaster, it's just not the culture you personally want.).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

It's important to keep in mind the difference between sex, gender, gender roles, and the individual traits that make up the gender roles.

Sex is the biological equipment and dimorphism, etc. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I think that transsexual describes "someone who has changed their sex," and thus appears female when they were assigned male (or vice versa) - you know, breasts, etc. Sex is not the form of reproduction - it describes the physical aspects, not capability.

Gender is the identity part. It's often parallel to sex, but not always - transgender, demigender, tumblrgender [sorry], etc. are all examples of someone having gender that differs from their assigned gender (from sex). Assigned gender is generally whatever sex one was born with, but actual gender can be different from that. Scientific evidence has shown that MtF brains more closely resemble cis female brains than cis male brains, so this is a thing.

Gender roles are the social expectations and stereotypes surrounding a given gender (mostly just female and male). I think that they are a bad thing, and so do many people on this forum, because they restrict what a given person can do, just because of their sex and gender.

The individual traits that compose gender roles are often, but not always, good. For instance - caring and gentle, good, right? Commonly associated with femininity. Courage and strength? Ditto, for masculinity.

But can't you have a gentle, caring man? Can't you have a courageous, strong woman? I will agree that women, on average, tend to be more caring than men. But this does not mean that men cannot be caring! In fact, this is because of the gender roles. It cannot support them! That would be circular logic.

Constraining people just because of their gender = bad. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be gentle. I'm saying they should be allowed to be gentle, and also strong.

[BillyTheKid]

that's no fun discussing like that. "OOohoho, let me just compare your averages with an extreme of mine and prove you TOTALLY wrong! Or let me leave out half the post and just heckle you for posting that chart, which now makes nooo sense!! Or let me ask you if you are really not just confused??" That's all bullsplint. And if bullsplint offends you, you got no wood. I'll recede from posting here, and do something that is fun instead, again.

[TheBiggerFish]

When the point is that an average is an average and cannot apply to all cases, then yes, you were proved wrong.

When your point is 'ono freeing people from gender roles is BRINGING DOWN SOCIETY!!!!1!!' and that's demonstrably false, then yes, you were proved wrong.

...Honestly I find your points to be getting steadily more ranty, incoherent/inconsistent, and wrong.

[Skyrunner]

BillyTheKid

Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace

Now we got women competeting with men in the job market, no one to look for after the kids, taking care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by.

Ah yes, us women are inherently predisposed to sandwich-making, taking care of kids and home, and bowing down to male authority. We are naturally supportive, caring, passive, submissive and hahaha

No, just no. You're confusing gender roles that were constructed (unintentionally) over millennia for various socioeconomical-cultural reasons with what gender is actually about. Women are not predisposed to be "supportive, caring" nor should women be expected to "look[ ]after the kids, taking care of the house" etc. And that's all that feminism is trying to say. It is highly likely that any sweeping generalizations you would want to make of male or female gender roles are not inherent and are learned or are cultural expectations.

You said that you would like to distinguish between the "sex-part" and the "persona-part," but hopelessly mix them up anyways. At first you seem to claim that sex is the ultimate decider of man and woman--"woman may have manly traits , but they don't become less manly[sic] ... because of that"--and then go on to haplessly ramble about how women have such-and-such essential traits and men have such-and-such traits, before somehow concluding that women and dirty feminisnms are to blame for our "disaster of a culture" that we have right now. I suggest you figure out a more logical and possibly less misogynistic argument before posting about this subject.

[TheBiggerFish]

Ach.  Indeed.
All of the above.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ditto. Also, could you say exactly which users you're complaining about? It helps things to know who you're talking to. I think you were referring to me when you said

Or let me ask you if you are really not just confused??"

I was making sure that I was not misconstruing your words. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Guess I shouldn't have.

(Obligatory "keep it civil" statement)

[alexandertnt]

that's no fun discussing like that. "OOohoho, let me just compare your averages with an extreme of mine and prove you TOTALLY wrong! Or let me leave out half the post and just heckle you for posting that chart, which now makes nooo sense!! Or let me ask you if you are really not just confused??" That's all bullsplint. And if bullsplint offends you, you got no wood. I'll recede from posting here, and do something that is fun instead, again.

I kind of doubt that even that's the average for people. I have met very few people that fit into any particular stereotype, gender or otherwise. Sure, most people don't identify with one of the many other genders on the internet, but very few people seem to cleanly fit into the male/female stereotypes.

Maybe you could explain your position a bit more rather than just asserting things? In particular, I am curious what your issue is with women competing with men in the job market. Is having a women hired over you any different to, say, having a black person hired over you?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part. Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that. As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature, and trying to tamper with them has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/) All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever. Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by. And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.

This... this is so much I simply cannot even. But even I must.

I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part.

Suuure. Clear. A man is a man if they are born a man, or if they are a nonfertile MtF, or if they are a fertile FtM. That seems really intuitive.[/sarcasm]

I've already distinguished between sex, gender, gender roles, and the individual traits that make up gender roles in an above post (after you wrote this, though), so I won't repeat it.

Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that.

I can hardly believe my eyes. Is he admitting that women can have masculine traits, and that this is okay?

As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

*facepalm*

As much as feminists want to make you believe...

Because feminists are the bad guys here, obviously, let's bash them whenever we can[/sarcasm]

men and women are different, vastly different.

This is partially true. Is there a nonphysical difference between men and women? Yes. Even if it weren't largely due to gender roles themselves, this doesn't mean anything. Sure, men and women are different, but men and men are different. The difference between the average man and the average woman isn't considerably larger than the difference between a man and a man.

Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences.

I'm beginning to hope that he understands. Does he realize that the main difference between men and women comes from socialization and gender roles, as evidenced by "our... history [is a] major shaper of [the] differences [between men and women]"?

Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring.

Nope.

He still doesn't get it.

On average, yes, men tend to be more dominant, and women tend to be more caring. But I've seen passive men. I've seen uncaring women. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it's a tendency. You can't say that all men are X.

Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

Aaand wrongness intensifies.

Yes, a woman has a fucking business competing with a man in strength! That is, me! I'm that man! I'm the weakest person in basically any group you can make, whether there are male or female people in it. My twelve-year-old sister is more athletic than me in every way. Only babies are weaker than I am. I can't even do one female-modified push-up!

You can't take an average (the average male will beat the average female in an arm-wrestling competition) and then use it as an absolute (all men will beat all women in arm-wrestling competitions). And DCSS players among the readers, this is for you - Dowan has plenty of grace and skill, and Duvessa is very strong and nimble. When Dowan dies, Duvessa flies into a rage. When Duvessa dies, Dowan quickly passes through quiet grief and then returns with a dangerously peaceful look.

That messes up every gender stereotype in your book - and I guarantee you, there are strong women in this world who fly into rages. There are graceful men who deal with grief quietly.

No trait is innate to a gender. There is a slight tendency toward anger for boys compared to girls - I will admit this! But the majority of differences come from society and gender roles, not the gender itself.

You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature...

And you can swear and shout all you want, there isn't a significant innate difference between men and women. The artificial constraints called "gender roles" hurt both men and women.

...and trying to tamper with [gender roles] has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster (link to WP). All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever.

First of all, stop bashing feminism. Second, you're seriously trying to blame the marriage and divorce problems on breaking gender roles?

a. The article itself gives many reasons for why this is happening.
b. What connection can you possibly draw between "oh, women are allowed to express traits commonly considered to be masculine now!" and "divorce rates increasing"?

Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by.

...

armok help me...

What in the four hells is wrong with you? You seriously want women to stay at home, taking care of the children?!

*a quiet rage develops behind DL's eyes, which you obviously can't see, this is the Internet*

Women are not inferior to men. They have equal innate rights in every way. There is nothing wrong with the freedoms that women have received over the last few centuries, nor is there anything wrong with the freedoms feminists demand today.

Women should be independent if they want to! They should have the freedom to go out on their own, get a job, buy a house, just like a single man. Or even if they're married! Couples have to individually work out who's going to work, who's going to clean, who's going to take care of the children - and frequently, the answer to all of the above is "both".

And damn right men have lost some authority. They're sharing it with women now, because women deserve it just as much.

And I suppose you think women should do whatever men tell them to do, and stay at home tidying up and caring for children. You honestly make me sick.

And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.

You sad, sad man. We never took anything away from women, especially their femininity. All we gave them was a choice. You seem to think that either women like to be restricted to a small slice of life, or that what they care doesn't matter, we need house-slaves, dammit!

If a woman wants to keep herself in the home, just like women have been forced to before, that's fine with me. As long as there's a choice. But as long as women have equal opportunity to men, you'll have a hard time finding a wife who's going to willingly subject herself to that.

Spoiler: old revision, hastily written (click to show/hide)

I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part. Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that. As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature, and trying to tamper with them has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/) All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever. Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by. And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.

This... this is so much I simply cannot even. But even I must.

I have my clear definition of a man and woman, and I was hoping you would distinguish between the sex-part, and the persona-part.

Suuure. Clear. A man is a man if they are born a man, or if they are a nonfertile MtF, or if they are a fertile FtM. That seems really intuitive.[/sarcasm]

I've already distinguished in an above post (after you wrote this, though), so I won't repeat it.

Sure, a woman can have manly traits, but they don't become less [womanly] or [become] gender-neutral because of that.

I can hardly believe my eyes. Is he admitting that women can have masculine traits, and that this is okay?

As much as feminists want to make you believe, men and women are different, vastly different. Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences. Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring. Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

*facepalm*

As much as feminists want to make you believe...

Because feminists are the bad guys here, obviously, let's bash them whenever we can[/sarcasm]

men and women are different, vastly different.

This is partially true. Is there a nonphysical difference between men and women? Yes. Even if it weren't largely due to gender roles themselves, this doesn't mean anything. Sure, men and women are different, but men and men are different. The difference between the average man and the average woman isn't considerably larger than the difference between a man and a man.

Our nature and history are the major shapers of these differences.

I'm beginning to hope that he understands. Does he realize that the main difference between men and women comes from socialization and gender roles, as evidenced by "our... history [is a] major shaper of [the] differences [between men and women]"?

Men are more proactive, dominant, women are more supportive, caring.

Nope.

He still doesn't get it.

On average, yes, men tend to be more dominant, and women tend to be more caring. But I've seen passive men. I've seen uncaring women. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, it's a tendency. You can't say that all men are X.

Just like a woman has no business competing with a man in strength, a man has no business competing with a woman in grace. Thus, certain traits simply belong to a gender.

Aaand wrongness intensifies.

Yes, a woman has a fucking business competing with a man in strength! That is, me! I'm that man! I'm the weakest person in basically any group you can make, whether there are male or female people in it. My twelve-year-old sister is more athletic than me in every way. Only babies are weaker than I am. I can't even do one female-modified push-up!

You can't take an average (the average male will beat the average female in an arm-wrestling competition) and then use it as an absolute (all men will beat all women in arm-wrestling competitions). And DCSS players among the readers, this is for you - Dowan has plenty of grace and skill, and Duvessa is very strong and nimble. When Dowan dies, Duvessa flies into a rage. When Duvessa dies, Dowan quickly passes through quiet grief and then returns with a dangerously peaceful look.

That messes up every gender stereotype in your book - and I guarantee you, there are strong women in this world who fly into rages. There are graceful men who deal with grief quietly.

No trait is innate to a gender. There is a slight tendency toward anger for boys compared to girls - I will admit this! But the majority of differences come from society and gender roles, not the gender itself.

You can tear your eyeballs out all you want, the differences don't vanish because you said so. They are deeply ingrained in our nature...

And you can swear and shout all you want, there isn't a significant innate difference between men and women. The artificial constraints called "gender roles" hurt both men and women.

...and trying to tamper with [gender roles] has lead to this disaster of a culture that we have right now: broken marriages left and right, and half of those that didn't break up yet are a disaster (link to WP). All because feminism made us break down "useless" gender roles and provided absolutely no substitute whatsoever.

First of all, stop bashing feminism. Second, you're seriously trying to blame the marriage and divorce problems on breaking gender roles?

a. The article itself gives many reasons for why this is happening.
b. What connection can you possibly draw between "oh, women are allowed to express traits commonly considered to be masculine now!" and "divorce rates increasing"?

Now we got women competing with men in the job market, no-one to look after the kids or take care of the house, a completely eradicated male authority, and barely enough money to get by.

...

armok help me...

What in the four hells is wrong with you? You seriously want women to stay at home, taking care of the children?!

*a quiet rage develops behind DL's eyes, which you obviously can't see, this is the Internet*

Do you realize how far we've come? We can't stop now! Women were second-class citizens - no, not even citizens at all! - a few centuries ago! They couldn't vote, they couldn't hold public office, they couldn't have jobs, they were effectively dependent on their husband for everything, and Armok forbid a woman try to protest against the state of things! And it wasn't men who fixed this. Women stood up for themselves, and men helped a bit.

And now you want to take half of the U.S. population and limit their entire life to staying in the home and tending to young ones, cleaning up after the husband. Women are people too, you tattered remnant of the mid-third millenium. They have the same rights you do.

And then you complain about "women trying to get jobs". Yeah. Women shouldn't be their own independent people! They should rely on another person for meaning and subsistence![/sarcasm] How is equality a problem? And men! Men "not having enough authority [compared to before, when they had all of it]"! Well damn right they don't! They have to share it with the women now!

And I suppose you think women should do whatever men tell them to do. You honestly make me sick.

And you want to tell me "Haha, men and women are just social constructs you little piece of splinter! And gender roles only hurt people!!"? Bullsplint! If we don't restore GENDER ROLES (and above all, FEMININITY!), we will just spiral down this miserable path of unhappiness and fighting among ourselves, until it all boils down to a civil war.

You sad, sad man. We never took anything away from women, especially their femininity. All we gave them was a choice. You seem to think that either women like to be restricted to a small slice of life, or that what they care doesn't matter, we need house-slaves, dammit!

==========

It's people like you that push feminists over the edge into "manslaughter" mode, really.

[saigo]

Do you realize how far we've come? We can't stop now! Women were second-class citizens - no, not even citizens at all! - a few centuries ago! They couldn't vote, they couldn't hold public office, they couldn't have jobs, they were effectively dependent on their husband for everything, and Armok forbid a woman try to protest against the state of things! And it wasn't men who fixed this. Women stood up for themselves, and men helped a bit.

This is very wrong. Women have always been citizens, as long as the concept has existed. Their legal rights have varied over time but not to the extent you imply.

Universal suffrage is a fairly new innovation. Voting has historically been tied to land ownership, not sex. The distinction here is that women were generally not favoured in inheritance, making it difficult for them to obtain land and therefore voting rights.

Women have always worked. Peasant women would work in the fields, and in towns they would work to maintain the household and assist with any business their husband had. Barring women from certain areas of employment become popular post-industrialism, and even then they could work as, for instance, a seamstress.

It was men who passed the laws granting women the same legal rights as men. Saying that women did it and men helped is grossly misrepresenting the social changes last century.

Finally, now that women have the same rights as men, why do you say "we can't stop now"? Surely equality under the law was the final step society needed to make?

[hops]

I think women should have more rights than men, seeing as they have the disadvantage of having to be the sex that give birth. I'm more for "not being a fucking dick" than equality.

[alexandertnt]

why do you say "we can't stop now"?

Dozebôm Lolumzalìs is quite clearly not referring to legal equality. It's not like having the right to vote ends discrimination/sexism/racism (as shown by the poster on here who thinks a women's proper role is in the house, being subservient to male authority :/).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

You're right in quite a few ways, sorry. Haste obscured my thinking. But in a few cases, the words I meant are truer than the words I hastily wrote.

1. Yes, women have technically been citizens. But citizens without many rights that men enjoyed. That's what I was trying to say.

2. Yes, women and poor alike have not had suffrage for long. That's the "starving children in Africa" fallacy - just because the poor had it bad doesn't mean that women's suffrage wasn't as important.

3. Sure, they've worked. When I said "couldn't work," I was thinking of more recently, like the 18th - 19th century, in which IIRC it was quite hard for women to gain employment that gave them enough money to survive on their own. I meant "couldn't support themselves because nobody would let them" more than I did "was not allowed to do work".

4. Sure, men technically passed the laws that gave women rights. But women were pretty important - I doubt anything would have happened nearly as soon if women hadn't stood up. It is true, though, that men were crucial in the women's rights movement.

5. I wouldn't say that women are entirely equal to men. In the eyes of the law? Maybe. In the eyes of society, though, no. Gender roles are restrictive, just like how non-suffrage was restrictive. Not as bad, maybe, but it still needs to be fixed.

Anyway, I got off-track with that last part (of my previous post), as I tend to do when I get emotional and distracted. I've rewritten it, keeping the old revision so that when posterity (or the next forumite) looks upon your post, they shall not think you a lunatic.