Feminism, Chivalry and Gender-Roles

Remove all ads!

I find this one of the strongest arguments against the gender bias.

One of the things considering education and feminism is that women themselves are sometimes the worst cases maintaining the gender bias. Quite a few of those worst cases are working in those fields that have a reputation of being feminine professions.

The reality is that in most cases a girl can work twice as much at school and have better numbers than the boys, but they get less attention and encouragement from the teachers than the boys. How do you think that this affects on how both of the sexes fare at school and later on in life? Boys get it easier since teachers are more lenient towards them and girls get the impression early on that no matter how much they work, they won't get the appreciation they'd deserve.

It's losing a lot of intellectual resources, that's what it is and by that this society is shooting itself in the leg. Why cripple yourself if you can avoid it?

 

Ok, first off:

This is the biggest crock I've heard in a long time. You want a perfect example? I (male) got LEGOs (building toys) as a kid and my (female) cousin got all the barbie toys. We're both engineers now, me Aerospace and her Environmental (offshoot of chemical). No one's a clothing designer, no one's a stay-at-home mom, or ever plans to be.

Another example: My girlfriend never got Barbies for her birthday, she was bought one Barbie toy and she tore that poor thing to shreds in an hour, she hated it, and I mean HATED. From then on she got LEGOs. Now she's working on her Masters in Counseling (out of psychology). She still loves to shop, especially for clothes.

Let's face it, there are some things that are obvious factors that aren't factors at all (birthday toys).

Let's also face the fact that men and women are not the same! Women work better in groups than men. Women are better at integrating different aspects of a problem. Men are better at working alone and on their own. Men are better at focusing on a single aspect of a problem. Women are more likely to describe something with features whereas men are more likely to use examples. When women are asked to work double shifts, their efficiency hardly changes, but you ask one to work 10 days in a row, single shift, and it drops dramatically, even before the standard 5 days in a row are up (it's the fact they KNOW they'll be working for the next X days more). Men, on the other hand, have the reverse. Men working a double shift drop their efficiency dramatically, sometimes even before the first shift is over, whereas they do just fine working 10, 12, or 14 days in a row single shift.

There's the fact that women build fat more easily than men, and men build muscle more easily. There's the fact that men are more prone to colorblindess and baldness, that our emotions work differently, that we communicate facts and ideas differently. Now this doesn't apply to everyone evenly. The range of varience within a group is bigger than the difference between averages, so there is certainly overlap. In some areas this overlap is big, in others it is small, but there is still a distinct difference between the averages. The simple fact READILY DEMONSTRASTED BY HUNDREDS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND BIOLOGY PAPERS is that the vast majority of men are better at certain tasks than women and worse at other certain tasks. It has been the task of psychologists, biologists, and neurologists for the past several decades to try and figure out how much they are different, what tasks and features they're different in, and whether this is natural or socialized.

In fact, even our basic biological make-up is different (our organ organization and such, not the atoms making our DNA). High blood pressure in men is a major risk factor for a heart attack, but has no significant connection to aneurysms at all. In women, it is the reverse. High blood pressure is a major risk factor for aneurysms and not for heart attacks. This is why so many more men die from heart attacks and so many fewer from aneurysms.

Before you start valuing or comparing two groups like this, or even saying they shouldn't be valued differently or compared, you should do your research and find out the truth.

P.S. This isn't a rant at all of you, I figure most of you have never even heard much of this. This is a rant at society in general, especially those that make the decissions and are constantly told this but decide to ignore it because they want to be PC instead of educating the public.

 

Huh? NOG (No Other Gods), your lack of subtlety is rivaled by your arrogance alone:

It's good of you to be around to tell us a thing or two then.

How comes you quoted the dolls/laboratory kit bit but left out the pointer to oversimplification? Certainly helps you furthering your cause, eh? Unfortunately, your anecdotical evidence does not further your cause - trying to base an argument on "I know someone who does it differently so you must be wrong" is not helping credibility along very much. Presenting one of the HUNDREDS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND BIOLOGY PAPERS to READILY DEMONSTRASTE how they apply to the case of quotas would have been more convincing, but somehow you chose to merely SHOUT OUT LOUDLY - always a good thing in an emotionally charged debate, right?

In any case you addressed the wrong problem. Whether or not men and women are equal on a fundamental level is not even the point. The point is: what are the aspects of womanhood that, when compared to manhood, prevent women from being able to earn the same amount of money and fill the same kind of positions that men do? Being a teamplayer is a bad thing for a company? Not being able to communicate (sometimes even bordering on autism) is considered to further your career?

And all those human resources guys all over the world - are they all reading your READILY DEMONSTRASTED facts from a HUNDREDS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND BIOLOGY PAPERS in order to apply the latest findings to the recruiting procedure and to find the one candidate that really, really fits the job profile? Wake up, man! They are hiring guys for the most basic reasons, nothing sophisticated about it. Guys are impressive, guys are bumptious, guys can't get pregnant.

Besides - why didn't you answer to the argument that high quality jobs for women are a necessity rather than a generous gift? So you could place your cocky remark about people wanting to be PC instead of educating the public?

I like your style big time.

 

@NOG (No Other Gods): You're right, women and men are different, but are any of those differences enough to justify the bias between the sexes we have in our societies? That's the thing. And could it be that some of those differences might make women as more valuable assets to a modern day society than they are because of the biased way their abilities are evalued? Could it be that a modern day society would need more co-operation skills for instance, no matter is it nature or nurture where those skills come from?

People should study the facts real good and make their value judgements based more on the facts than the over two thousand year old ongoing oppression. Whenever slavery has been the norm in the society and people have started to oppose it, even some of the slaves themselves have thought that these people are crazy opposing the norm. And the leaders? The slave-owners or those that trade with slaves? They'd do almost anything so that the situation wouldn't change.

 

im going to speak on this, because this is an area where i have experience,
first of all, the word exempt means that someone is excused, not forced not to serve. this would be relevent if there were a conscription and women were inot included.

i think you mean to say that women are prevented from persuing certin roles with the millitary, this is not because of some schovanistic "men are better then women" thing, this has reasoning behind it.

men are naturally physically more capable then women, this is not a "man thing" this is a real thing, men are more able to lug 150lbs of kit through 10 miles of desert.
there are other reasons from a psychological point of view but there is no need to go into that - unless you really want to.
all i will say on that side is that the US millitary carried out a training reigeme which involved 'simulated' rape, and there was an outcry about it.

 

What makes you think that good grades equal to good career? And why would the women need more encouragement either? The point is, there should not be any 50/50 -share when there should be no genders in the first place. Who gets "encouragement" is irrevelant since they all are the same. Those who compete the best also get the best results, grades being just something teachers give to those they like (more or less). If they were given even more, the law would discriminate men.

This is exactly what I mean by "I'm woman! I'm a victim! Give me more rights!" Women see themselves as the victims when, in reality, they already have all the same, legal rights.

@ Shoshino

Rape is what women have to expect if they join the army and go to war. I wouldn't think twice if my enemy was a woman with a rifle, lost, and were on my mercy. I would bang her and either put a bullet into her head or take as a prisoner for more banging. It's war, after all, and you don't become a soldier just because you want to play fetch with all the pretty boys in the uniform.

Anyway, that should not be allowed to prevent women from joining the army any more than a potentially poor stamina. If the tests are the same for both genders, those who pass them are equally capable. If women don't want to crawl in mud 24/7, 12 months a year, then they should consider giving up after the mandatory service-period. (Note: it's mandatory in Finland. 6 months as a grunt or 12 months as a civil-servant.)

 

The percentage of women of all unemployed in this country is 48%. Meaning that the majority of unemployed are men. Women have clearly no bigger trouble than men in finding work suiting themselves by their own without the requirement of any kind of special encouragement from the government.

I can't think of a single position in the military which a woman could not reach in my country, however considering that several officers are indeed schovanistic or feel that the army is only for men, pursuing higher ranks would no doubt be significantly harder.

Good question, and the fact that you don't know makes it obvious that it simply has to be discrimination? I don't really know how they in Finland get women to earn less since most salaries are negotiated through a collective contract between the employer and the unions, which certainly don't have any discriminative paragraphs in them. I would be curious to know how exactly it is even possible that women earn less but I've yet to hear a definate answer.

 

And yet they don't clamor to jump back in... one of the main reasons behind some women not wanting the ERA to pass is because then women will be eligible for the draft.

Make them legally equal and you have to give them equal responsibilities. I am all for equal legal rights and the demise of gender roles (not genders, because women are different), but if women want rights, they should be eligible for the freakin' draft when it occurs.

 

Men are limited by a need to nap.

 

CLEARLY you've never dated an Asian girl.

 

That does not make them more or less "physically capable," but makes men better pack mules. Physically capable can also mean: getting sick less, living a healther life, or greater longevity.

 

In New Zealand, our prime minister is a woman, our last governer-general was a woman, and the CEO of our largest company is a woman. At my work, my boss is a woman. Do you hear me complaining that men don't get enough top jobs? No. Let's just get on with life.

 

I guess I'm not very PC, but when I am with a group of people, and amongst that group there is a woman whom dominates the conversation and is constantly trying to "win" the "social game"...I find her annoying. I find guys like that annoying as well but only if it is done without humor...but with woman, almost always annoying.

I don't know, maybe women should just try being funnier...

@ Death Rabbit

Actually, I did date an Asian girl and she was a napper as well. I imagine all that extra effort needed to eat without adequate utensils needs to be replenished somehow...

 

Also the Speaker of Parliament is a women. And I believe the head judge person. So all the top roles were taken up. But iirc, if you look at the national stats, women still are in the minority in these high paid jobs - even taking into account these few noteworthy exceptions.

 

I'm not thinking good grades equal good career. Funny though, education has been considered as the thing that made Finland one of the most competitive countries in the world. Now what you're saying is that education doesn't relate to real life?

Why should men get more encouragement? Since it's been studied that boys are encouraged more and that teachers are more lenient towards them. It's not random so it has to have basis on something. You're implying that women have poorer qualities when it comes to social situations with teachers and work? Or are you saying that women have less intellect than men? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's right. Then why should men need any special pampering by the government? If women are more capable, then let them have the school positions. In fact if they're more capable, then that's what we want as a labour force. Capable people who don't live up to their potential. Most women don't live up to their full potential because that's not what's expected of a woman.

It happens through raises. The bosses are men, a man gets more easily to be buddy-buddy with the boss since they're both men and lo and behold: the worker gets a raise! Consider the possibilities of a woman sucking up to a boss. Now what does that sentence make you think about?

 

@ wodrplay

first off, women are allowed to serve in the forces, in the infantry and many other aspects, they are prevented from certain roles, such as the SAS and royal marines

there is alot more to it then rape and stamina. think about it, all the things that happen to a womans body, that men dont have to worry about.
they are also far easier to torture and gain information from.

 

@ HB

from http://www.stats.govt.nz/quick-facts/people/human-rights-race-women-youth-issues.htm

And while you're browsing, have a look at these figures here as well: http://www.stats.govt.nz/quick-facts/people/incomes.htm

@ Morgoroth:

The same can be said for the Netherlands: http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/cijfers/cijfers-per-thema/default.htm

Interestingly, 75% of the male population is classified as being financially independent, instead of only 45% of the female polulation.

Just do a bit of researching the stats your own government provides before pulling something like "only 48% of the unemployed are women" out of the hat - a figure I couldn't find in the stats, by the way.

Talking discrimination is a bad idea, because we all know that we personally aren't discriminating anyone anywhere, right, dudes? Maybe it's the women's laziness that causes the above imbalance? Or the fact that women have less elbows? Well, okay, they've got two, like most of us, but you know what I mean. Who cares what's causing this imbalance as long as we agree that we want to level it.

Of course, children will always have an impact, but I think it is the responsibility of the society as a whole to minimize these impacts. Right now, women are shouldering the bigger part and are bearing the negative consequences - whereas the positive consequences are available for society as a whole. To me, this really seams not to be fair.

So, as long as "women have yet to achieve full equality with men in terms of economic and social status, freedom from discrimination and access to decision-making processes" I'll say we apply those damn quotas. If you come up with a better idea, well, feel free to distribute it to the decision makers. But in the mean time I suggest that you don't bash the quotas for the sole reason that "discrimination is not happening in my country, we're all equal under law".

[Edit] Included Morgoroth explicitly as the addressee of the last web-link.

[ September 26, 2006, 12:15: Message edited by: Darkthrone ]

 

Sorry? When did I say that?

 

You didn't, of course. I referred to the statement of Morgoroth and didn't make it clear that I changed the addressee. My bad.

Doesn't impact my totalitarian views, though.

 

So it's proven: females are treated like equals. They do not deserve any more rights. They deserve more responsibilities. Women should have to serve as conscripts exactly like men.

There is no way to know that without testing. If there are any women who want to go through a "simulated" rape with me, PM me. Hell, I might allow you to be the rapist if you ask nicely enough. Just no leather-games.

Don't mix up the two: education is NOT the same thing as good grades. Education: you have finished your schools. Good grades: numbers in papers.

Only if it is done systematically throughout the line and all men are treated like "buddy-buddies." What are the chances of that in any company with more than 10 employees?