Feminism, Chivalry and Gender-Roles

Remove all ads!

You just need to write less to get the message through more clearly. The previous kind of behemots aren't pretty to read. I'm sorry if I understood you wrong, but it was a bit too high-flying text, no?

 

But is it even possible to have an affirmative quota without also haveing a preventive one? Does having one not necessitate having the other? For example, if we say that at least X% of the workforce must be of a certain sex, does that not mean that no more than 100-X% of the workforce can be of the other sex?

My biggest problem with the quota system is you are trying to solve a sexist policy by instituting a sexist policy. In order to prevent people from hiring individuals on the basis of their sex, we will institute a policy that requires you to hire individuals on the basis of their sex. Does this not seem strange - or at the very least counterintuitive to some?

Let's take that train of thought a bit further. My stance is that the quota system is absurd. In order to comply with the rules of the quota system, you must commit an absurd act (hiring someone solely on the basis of sex). If meeting a rule requires committing an absurd act, then surely the rule itself must be absurd.

 

I feel like I wanna throw something in here. A different perspective.

It seems like everyone in this thread so far has a strong opinion one way or another about the gender equality issue. I'm not one of those people.

Sure I believe a man can do anything a woman can (and vice versa) and that equal work should absolutely merit equal pay. But this isn't really an issue that's affected me personally. I'm in a profession (graphic design/advertising/web design) where there really is NO glass ceiling whatsoever. There is an even 50/50 split of men and women in my profession, and in many cases women are the ones who run and operate the most powerful design studios in the country (and the world). Maybe it's because there are so many liberals in my profession, who knows. With few exceptions (such as the needs of a specific project), gender seemingly plays no role at all in my profession.

So from my point of view - this is a non-issue, and I really don't care. Furthermore, I've known enough strong and successful females that I guess I don't recall ever hearing an "I'm being kept behind because of my gender" sob story to identify with personally.

Of course, I'm sure such discrimination does exist (especially in the areas of finance, real estate and law). I acknowledge that. But because it doesn't effect me personally, I can't seem to care much about it. Especially when you consider how far the women's lib movement has come in the last 50 years. Hell, even in the last 20.

Just thought I'd throw that in. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, it's just my viewpoint.

EDIT: has anyone else noticed that this entire thread - with the exception of one lonely post from Rally at the beginning - consists entirely of MALES? Irony's good on crackers...

 

@DR: Yeah I started to wonder about that when Rallymama didn't take part in the conversation after that one comment.

Then I noticed that the most heated arguments seemed to come from finnish people. That's something to think about, maybe considering what the discussions about and since it's a finnish man starting this topic.

@Chevalier: Well, yeah, I got the point about expressing myself and I was wondering how it would be taken when I wrote it down. I should've said that in some other way, since that's usually how for instance sexual minorities try to get their point through with little success. But there are people who, and places in this world where they frown upon and shun any deviation from the norm.

Well neither have we. My worshipping women isn't based on any formal tradition. It's not that women would be that much more special than anything else, it's just that men are that much less than they should or could be that makes women better than men.

Silent disapproval is putting you into one of the worst prisons there is. To know that no matter what you do, you will never get the same priviledges as other people because of arbitrary discrimination is that kind of prison. Now you'd have to try pretty hard trying to convince me that this discrimination doesn't exist, when it comes from the same source as the discrimination I've had in my life. It's the will of the sadistic mind and of those with more physical strength imposed on the people that are most easily oppressed. It cannot be easily rationalized and it's even harder to justify. In fact even trying would be monstrous. It's the will to power without the nobility. It's the hunger for power over others without realizing that power without self-control is yet another slave-mentality trying to feed this hunger by pettiness towards other people.

It has nothing to do with fighting back. In most extreme cases that would mean that women who are raped can blame it all on themselves for not fighting back. That civilians tortured and killed in war can blame themselves for not fighting back or for being in the zone of war. It's saying that might makes right, and even if that would seem to be the case, it's not the way the world should be.

I find the idea of gender quotas favoring women interesting, but I think Rallymama had a point in the 'Chivalry is not dead' thread that can be applied to them. Evening the odds makes your acquired strength and the gained victories less meaningful. It might imply that you'd need a handicap, that your skills aren't as good a the other guys.

 

That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

I'm pretty much along the same lines as Darkthrone and Iku-Turso. I just can't be bothered to spew out novels about it.

Serious now? Hmm, I vaguely recall this same guy in some other thread comparing taking a woman out on a date and seeing a prostitute purely in financial terms, so I shoudn't be surprised.

Chev:
You're shooting yourself in the leg writing those gigantic posts without even organizing all the points directed at one person in one section of the post. Your points are going to be lost when people can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

 

I remember that thread too. That guy was just saying he preferred one-time-payments, against sex, over long-time loans and headaches. He's a smart guy; you should listen him.

 

You said this:

Then you said this:

If it was a man you had taken prisoner would you "bang" him? Or take him for more "banging?"
Obviously you would victimize a woman sexually, but not the man (of course, I'm only guessing here). Women are victims of men who can't see that they are not just sexual objects. And you proved that by that last comment.

BTW, some people actually become soldiers to defend their country, its people and its values - not to become sadistic rapists.

 

No, Chandos, I wouldn't bang a man, since I'm not gay. I would simply shoot him to the head like he tried to do to me a moment ago. People die in war, you know, and it's about making sure it's not me or my team who dies. Women simply have the option of giving something instead of dying on the spot.

Would sparing an enemy because she could offer pleasure make me a sadistic rapist? Would you prefer me to overlook her option and just bury her right away to prove that she is not merely a sexual object? Would she appreciate it? No, no, and no.

 

*I'd* appreciate not getting raped.

 

It's just a factor that women who join the military will have to deal with. If they're captured they'll most probably be raped, especially considering the type of enemies organised militaries face today - rebel groups with no country that is responsiable for their actions.

 

I didn't realise Finland was that bad.

 

@Aldeth:

Yes, that's true, although the vibe is different (i.e. focus on promoting one side or limiting the other). However, what I meant to point out was that giving women handicaps is even more demeaning than institutionalised oppression. It suggests women won't be elected or chosen in a contest or whatever without that handicap. I think this is more or less what Rally said.

Yes, it's complete mess.

@Iku-Turso:

Flaunting stuff is not the same as merely being different. Besides, I really am sick of all the "express yourself" thing as you must undoubtedly already know at this point, anyway.

That's horrific, yes. However, there are people who submit to compulsion just because the compeller is more aggressive, while resistance would normally be successful. There are also people who take strong suggestion or even demand (with no intention of enforcement) as already compulsion. It takes a sheep to sleep with someone just because he's nagging (or in the hope he will stop nagging) but even that happens. The lawyer in me needs to point out that not all instances of people feeling like (or really being, if you prefer) rape victims correspond with the crime of rape on the part of the other person.

Again. However, remember that in some instances, one person with a couple of bullets in one gun can terrorise a large crowd of people.

Power doesn't give right. Not defending yourself doesn't make you guilty per se. It would be cruel to say that some people have themselves to blame. However, many people yield too easily.

Such a victory is a defeat in fact.

@Susipaisti:

I prefer to go chronologically, point by point, as the discussion develops. We're discussing points, not really conducting a number of parallel discussions. Otherwise it looks like a mediaeval battle, just a chaotic frenzy of duels. You can still just go by captions if you're not interested in what's said to other people. No one forces you to read paragraphs that don't interest you.

@Chandos:

And in what way should men react to that? Should we guys in civilised countries make up for other guys by sending our women to fight them as grunts and get captured and raped? By allowing women to serve as grunts you are not combatting the mentality that makes the enemy rape them upon capture. Of course, I won't cry if you have rapists shot upon capture.

@Wirhe:

Easy! Assumptions, assumptions. Some women prefer to be shot rather than raped.

@Abomination:

...Such as the American soldiers, prison guards and private contractors raping teenagers in prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq? Atually, some of the sexual oppressors have even been females oppressing males.

Besides, you forget the effect it has on male fellow soldiers. Would you rather have them just beat up your male fellows or rape a female captive on your eyes to make you betray secrets?

 

I'll remember to ask about it in the future, while holding a barrel of a gun against her skull: "Now, my lady... Which one is it going to be: pants down or skull open?"

Not a difficult choise, really. Women can cope with it really well too, after shedding a few tears and then continuing like normal. It's actually men who are more outraged than anyone else, or so certain documentaries have said.

That's how it is. No one wants to be a hero, since being one and the subject of a funeral is not a very comforting thought. Thus you could say that might *does* make it right, when the person who would dare to claim the opposite would be a dead person.

Heh, my thoughts exactly. Heard that the women got it going because the islamistic men viewed sex as a sin, so naturally the women wanted to torment them with it. Of course, the yanks were like while the other side was

 

Wordplay:

How noble of you. Are those really the only two choices? Raping or killing? Strange attitude, that.

Which documentaries would those be?

Chev:

It's quite chaotic as it is. Wasn't there some confusion with you and Wordplay on this very page?

 

Asking her to choose between being raped and a bullet would already make you qualify as a sadistic person, as you would intentionally be causing emotional duress with the choice itself. And because you know that should she chose rape, there would be physical pain for her, yep, you'd be a sadistic rapist.

If you choose to shoot her, instead, you'd be a murderer. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that shooting an unarmed, defenseless person (even in war) is still a crime.

 

@DR:

Ok, let me ask you this one. Do you or your male co-workers still hold doors open for women, regardless of their position in the company relative to you?

If chivalry is anathema to female progression in the work place, then the answer should be 'no' because these women have clearly gone a long way to achieving, if not having achieved already, equality in the work place, thus chivalry would have no place.

If chivalry and female progression in the work place can go hand-in-hand, then I would expect there to be a 'yes' in there somewhere, if not a flat out 'yes' then at leas an 'I don't but some others do' or something along those lines.

Are you more or less likely to hold a door open, or hold the elevator for, or whatever, a female co-worker in your work environment than you are to do so for a random female at the mall?

Do you see more or less of your male co-workers acting chivalric for female co-workers at work than random men for random women in society in general?

Do the women in your work place seem more or less accepting of/receptive to/grateful for such acts than the average woman?

I'm honestly curious to hear the answers to these.

 

Perhaps I should then correct the example I gave a little: she was a soldier, she tried her best to kill me, lost, and thus got to the situation where her enemy holds a barrel against her skull. She knew what she was doing and so was I. Now I dictate the rules. She was hardly an "unarmed, defenceless" person, but a well trained, purposeful soldier and wouldn't had given *me* the same option at all. She would had become the "murderer" you described without question.

In a situation like that, everything goes and the only winner is the survivor. After all, civilians shouldn't be the target of war and thus not the opposing side. Quite likely she would be one those patriotic "I will do anything to defend my country!" -women, so that's what it means to "do everything."

Of course, I would never go to war for any reason. You never win in a live-or-die situation when you shouldn't be there at all.

 

Oh, great. Justified revenge then.

If someone threatens you right there and then, of course you have to kill them. If you're in a position to take someone prisoner, you are to treat them as a prisoner. Not as a blowup doll. Saying "hey, that's war" doesn't quite cut it in military court.

Edit: Rephrase "If you're in a position to" to "If you" then. The point remains.

[ October 05, 2006, 13:35: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

Except that I wouldn't need to take prisoners, she wouldn't necessary want to become a prisoner, and the orders might say "no prisoners." She might have just shot a few buddies of mine, so rape'n'rip would certainly make us feel a lot better if it was done right there and then. Should she survive the initial, then yes; she would be spared quite likely. Not a bad price to pay of survival.

But whatever. Just speculating. I doubt neither of us would have the guts or *need* to get laid while bombs rain and bullets fly.

[ October 05, 2006, 21:30: Message edited by: Wordplay ]