International Women's Day

[spadgy]

No... I did learn all this stuff about Feminism at college - which was overly biased towards the "plight" of females (as it would be, considering the subject). Even you concede the biased nature of the argument. But feminism makes females appear angelic in nature, and therefore aids in the pedestalisation of women by men - especially in regards to being treated as the "weaker" sex.

Fair enough. So you weren't talking about reading universally? Though easy on the popping words into my mouth (I'm sure that wasn't your intention!). I recognise there's arguably many biases in different directions within feminism. I do not believe there is an overt bias universal to feminism in quite the way you see it. All my opinions, and not facts, of course!

And if there are many strands of feminism, I find there to be a contradiction when all of "feminism" is united under the umbrella of International Women's Day - itself implying a singular movement.

Yep. That's a reasonable point; though I'd not dare to claim you're right or wrong. I see the day as a positive thing, I think, but I'd not be surprised is some feminists recognise exactly your point, or elements of it.

And to briefly don my mod's hat...

Ask any "princess" as to what her opinion is, and she'll most likely tell you that she doesn't care, as long as she gets to nab her footballer and act the trophy housewife/whore.

Was this quote about all women universally? If it was, regardless of feminism and my opinions on that statement, please consider our female forum members before describing them with terms like that last word. We welcome forum members of any gender here, and I language like that is not pleasant if it's referring to our members. We can debate without being so unkind too our members. If it wasn't applied to all women universally, it's not per se a modding matter, and I'll resist the temptation to get into that particular argument.

EDIT:

Not when the majority of women still insist on men being the breadwinner, and when it's the guy who has to pay for dates.

You and I know some very different women.

[Eaglet]

You can't have notions of "equality" and "equal pay"... Not when the majority of women still insist on men being the breadwinner, and when it's the guy who has to pay for dates.

That's why I say that feminism (as an ideological construct) is bullshit, which promotes the notion that women can have their cake and eat it too. And if equality encourages responsibility, the last thing women want is to take responsibility for their actions.

By and large, women want all the benefits of "equality", but none of the pitfalls.

I know what you're talking about but i don't think you can make as sweeping generalizations as that for all women.
As there are bitches who want to keep their cake and eat it (usually not interested in the political side of it at all, just the practical benefits) there are assholes who take advantage of the benefits they actually get for being men. Bad apples on both sides of the frontline.
And at the same time there are both men and women who want to do the hard thing, walk the straight and narrow and say no to every kind of fucking privilege and be judged on what they've performed.

[replayme]

And to briefly don my mod's hat...

Ask any "princess" as to what her opinion is, and she'll most likely tell you that she doesn't care, as long as she gets to nab her footballer and act the trophy housewife/whore.

Was this quote about all women universally? If it was, regardless of feminism and my opinions on that statement, please consider our female forum members before describing them with terms like that last word. We welcome forum members of any gender here, and I language like that is not pleasant if it's referring to our members. We can debate without being so unkind too our members. If it wasn't applied to all women universally, it's not per se a modding matter, and I'll resist the temptation to get into that particular argument.

EDIT:

Not when the majority of women still insist on men being the breadwinner, and when it's the guy who has to pay for dates.

You and I know some very different women!

The quote was just about self-entitled "princesses" and wags. Not all women are wags. Not sure as to which type the women on this forum fall into...

We probably know some very different women. But the (traditional) role of the man is to act as the breadwinner. It is a tradition after all, supported both by (the majority of) men AND women (for entirely different reasons).

I do concede that I made a generalisation, but that is exactly the point of a taking a majority view which sees the man's role as provider and breadwinner.

If a woman is going to act the wag/trophy, it seems reasonable to argue that her behaviour undermines feminism and all that it stands for.

[spadgy]

The quote was just about "princesses" and wags. Not all women are wags. Not sure as to which type the women on this forum fall into...

OK. Just checking, and I'm glad I did. I wasn't clear on what you meant by 'princesses'. Hopefully now it's clearer for all our readers what your point was. I'm not sure I agree with the point, but such is life. We're all different, male, female or otherwise.

On that note, I'm sure the female members of this forum are all different, just as the males here are, and any members that don't roll with traditional gender definitions.

[replayme]

The quote was just about "princesses" and wags. Not all women are wags. Not sure as to which type the women on this forum fall into...

OK. Just checking, and I'm glad I did. I wasn't clear on what you meant by 'princesses'. Hopefully now it's clearer for all our readers what your point was. I'm not sure I agree with the point, but such is life. We're all different, male, female or otherwise.

On that note, I'm sure the female members of this forum are all different, just as the males here are, and any members that don't roll with traditional gender definitions.

I just want to win the national lottery, and retire to some sunny island...

I'm sure I set a bad example for all men out there.

[Eaglet]

I'm sure the female members of this forum are all different

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWPynScqgw
?

[glitch]

ok replayme let me try to sum up your position:

- on the one hand we have wags(?) who are totally "undermining feminism" and btw they are also "whores".

- on the other hand we have feminists, but "feminism is bullshit", cause the majority of women are wags that only want the "benefits" of equality but not the responsibility.




...i'm so confused now, please teach me how to be good girl ( ._.)

[Skykid]

The logical end state of feminism is that the female gender is in power and privileged towards the male gender.

My main query actually. I always take into account the details, try to understand the perspective - and do, to some degree - but it's the endgame that always eludes me. Yes men are a bunch of righteous bastards; and even if you think you aren't, you still are; and yes, when it comes to disparity between the sexes there's certainly no equilibrium of equality in different walks of life, exemplified by the beliefs of various global cultures.

But then on the other hand I see 21st century progress in the developed world breaking new ground in terms of gender equality. So much has changed for the better, it strikes me as unusual for this particular drum to suddenly be getting beaten three times as hard.

There's a way to go, but trying to stamp out all the defining idiosyncrasies of the sexes is a bit like trying to stamp out what makes us human. I understand feminism seeks the unravelling of gender stereotyping, but where do you draw the line? Want to eradicate gender completely? Wipe out oestrogen and testosterone? Have everyone wearing the same clothes?

Could be radically boring.

Much of our social and gender superiorities are manufactured bullshit. Other things are this way for a reason. I like to think science, nature, procreation, X and Y chromosomes, somewhere along those lines.

I don't know why those neanderthals used to drag chicks into murky caves by their hair and spit roast them all night without any regard for their wellbeing. But those behaviours are what got us here, and here is quite a long way from there, in terms of civility.

...i'm so confused now, please teach me how to be good girl ( ._.)

Don't pay too much mind.

[Mischief Maker]

The greatest failing of the political Left is its willingness to let the Right define the terms of debate. "Traditional Values" define femininity as being a submissive slave, among other things. Feminists don't want to be submissive slaves, but since they've allowed the Right to define the terms they throw the baby out with the bathwater by rejecting femininity entirely.

Not to mention "equality" is an easier concept to wrap your head around than "maximizing."

[Eaglet]

.

Great post.
I agree with the idiosyncrasies helping with defining our humanity and making life more diverse and enjoyable.
I can't even imagine the identity crisis the poor kids being put through "gender neutral pre-school" (there actually is such a thing here in Sweden) - where boys are encouraged to play dress up and wear pink, girls encouraged to wear blue and play with cars and both being defined as "hen" (a made up Swedish gender neutral word - instead of "he" or "she". Yes, this is actually a thing) - are going to experience when they get out in actual society or - God forbid - try spending some time outside of civilization (hiking, joining an elite military unit etc. - gives a pretty good understanding of where we've come from, evolutionary wise).

[Mortificator]

I'm in favor of women being allowed to serve in elite military units. Less women would be capable of qualifying than men, but let's be real, very few men have what it takes either.

[spadgy]

Interesting stuff from Skykid and Eaglet. Certainly I agree difference is what infuses life with flavour, and agree with lots of what you say. It might be idealist, but I like the idea that difference and equality can make compatible bedfellows. I hope that's true.

As Skykid says, there's been much positive progress in recent times, and we're moving in the right direction. Can't deny progress, and it should be celebrated (by things like International Women's Day!).

The gender neutrality movement is certainly a strange thing (as with much of the above, particularly at it's extremes), but some of my sentiments do slightly overlap with a few of its ideas (hear me out!). I'm a big fan of the campaign by the LetToysBeToys, where they question the 'pink and blue' approach to marketing toys. Many, many toys see kids aping adult jobs, tasks and pastimes. While I've not read much academic on the subject for too many years, toys are often agreed to be formative in setting kids' goals, interests and ambitions. So, when construction, science and engineering toys are marketed as 'just for boys', and toys focused on childcare and emotional bonding are focused on girls, I think it's at least reasonable to explore the idea that marketing toys based on gender could be a negative contribution to society.

(My favourite toys as a kid were guns, robots, construction kits and such, and I grew up a liberal wimp, so maybe I'm wrong! And I still like toy guns, robots and construction kits!).

If I have a kid and they choose to like robots, pink, dolls and blue, fine by me! Pushing it too hard on a kid, though, is a questionable business.

I'd not heard the 'hen' thing though. That's quite out there! That said, many cultures have third, fourth etc genders.

EDIT: I just noticed I (a male) am wearing a T-shirt with 'Girl' across the front (Girl is a skateboard company). Seems fitting!

[Eaglet]

I'm in favor of women being allowed to serve in elite military units. Less women would be capable of qualifying than men, but let's be real, very few men have what it takes either.

Not to completely derail the topic but -
Both points are true, but from what i've observed and learned - because of our basic anatomical differences - there's pretty much only a 1in2million women who could handle such physical stress over the duration.
Men are simply created from the ground up to handle heavier carrying loads than women and injuries occur at a ridiculously higher frequency.
A couple of years back the government tried to use affirmative action to get 3 women into a swedish Ranger unit. Even though 2 of them didn't even fulfill all of the requirements to even be eligible.
Needless to say those two only stayed a couple of weeks. The third one stayed through about half of the conscription before she got too injured to carry on.
At this point she had already become a burden to everybody else since she wasn't able to carry as much and had to go with lightened loads (meant more carrying for everybody else since all materiel has to be brought in order to fulfill whatever mission). She had been a junior elite cross country skier before joining so stamina wasn't a problem.

The point i'm trying to make is that it doesn't make sense to try and force people into something that has been dominated by people of the opposite gender. Which sometimes is for a good reason.

[Mischief Maker]

What the hell! If this is turning into a serious discussions of gender relations, chew on THIS for a while:

We are living in a society in transition. We have one foot in the 20th century, with Women's Suffrage, the Pill and the Sexual Revolution, and the Feminist movement, and one foot in the bronze age, when women were de-facto slaves used for breeding stock. People nowadays try in vain to reconcile the two sets of values, but they cannot be reconciled. In my opinion, the old values need to go. One of the most pernicious of these is the myth of the war of the sexes and what it does to women:

Society divides adult, sexually active women into two categories. The first category is a woman who has sex with any man she wants. She doesn't worry about what's going to happen to her reputation if she sleeps with him, she doesn't worry if he's done enough to earn sex, she doesn't worry if he's giving her a promise of long-term commitment. The fact that she wants to have sex, with this guy, at this particular moment, is reason enough for her.

And society says this woman "has no self-respect." She's untrustworthy, she has no standards, her vagina is falling apart and "loose." Why doesn't she have self-respect? "She just gives herself away!" And society has a nasty 4-letter word to describe this type of woman:

Spoiler

SLUT

Now slut is similar to the n-word in that it means different things depending on who says it. If a man calls a woman a slut, it's not nice, but it's not that bad because all he's really saying is she's sleeping with more men than he approves of. But if another woman calls her "slut" and isn't joking, it's the most cutting insult possible, worse than "bitch" and "cunt" combined. A woman is calling her a traitor to her gender. Because this slut isn't repressing her own desires, she's undermining the security of all the other women in the world.

Who are these women so threatened by sluts and why? Well logically, if a woman who gives away sex for free has no self-respect, a woman with great self-respect never has sex for free, she always gets paid for it! What do we call women who get paid for sex?

Spoiler

WHORE

But there is a hierarchy of whores. The low status whore we'll call a "Ho." A Ho is a woman who says something like, "Well he bought me this necklace, I'll fuck him." or "He paid for the tickets, I'll fuck him," or "He did my taxes, I'll fuck him," or "We had the requisite 3 dates and he didn't say anything stupid, now I can fuck him," or even standing on a corner saying, "I'll suck your dick for a hundred bucks." The fact that she's getting some manner of payment justifies the sex. As long as she brings in, she can put out.

But while Hos are more socially acceptable than sluts, they're still low status because they're doing small business and living from paycheck to paycheck. A slut is an outlaw because she gives away sex for free. Why is a Ho low status? Because she's cheap.

Finally we come to the high status whore, the only type of woman society celebrates. She has closed "the big deal" and is set for life. She demonstrates to the world that her sexuality is so high value, a quality man is willing to give her a lifetime of financial support in return for sole access to her sex. And we have a nasty 4-letter word for this kind of woman:

Spoiler

WIFE

So if a woman has a marriage contract, and her husband cheats on her with some Ho, she won't be happy, but ultimately she'll get over it because he still has to pay the Ho for sex and he wouldn't be gaining anything by leaving his existing wife. It's cheaper to keep her. But if he has sex with a slut, who provides him with sex simply because she likes him, that's unacceptable. That slut is undercutting the sex cartel. Like mothers tell their daughters, "He won't buy the cow if he gets the milk for free!" So women brutally punish sluts by shaming and ostracizing them. Even men are discouraged from having serious relationships with sluts or their (dumbass) friends will laugh at them.

Meanwhile, if you ever tell a man, "If you do what you want, because you want to do it, that means you have no self respect!" he will laugh in your face and tell you that's the stupidest thing he's ever heard.



Discuss.

[glitch]

ok so you're saying society divides women into sluts, cheap whores, and high status whores (i.e. wives), by the "price" they put on sex? and women do some mental math where they add necklaces and tickets and multiply by dates and subtract fuck-ups to assess whether a dude has hit the requisite score threshold for sex?

just to be sure, you are saying that all this is a pernicious myth, right?

[Mischief Maker]

ok so you're saying society divides women into sluts, cheap whores, and high status whores (i.e. wives), by the "price" they put on sex? and women do some mental math where they add necklaces and tickets and multiply by dates and subtract fuck-ups to assess whether a dude has hit the requisite score threshold for sex?

just to be sure, you are saying that all this is a pernicious myth, right?

[Skykid]

Discuss.

I very much enjoyed your post and its format. It made its point while also giving me a chuckle.

But what you've focussed on is kind of narrow. Society has worked out this status branding based on either gender's sexual activities and that certainly is unequal - but in the grand scheme of things how prevalent and caustic is this nasty name calling? Every time I turn on the TV there's some US reality show with 50-something American women married into wealth calling each other "Sluuut!", and every time I watch a film about life in the Hood there's always a bunch of guys calling each other "n[BLACKMANTXT]r".

I don't know anyone who dishes out the 'S' and 'W' word personally. These days both genders are incredibly liberal when it comes to sex (it's not the cover your ankles! 1950s anymore). Women have become a lot more open and outgoing when it comes to multiple intimate relations, hell, they even make abhorrent TV shows all about the sexual exploits of various middle-aged professionals in the business of journalism.

A pernicious myth? Yes. A myth? In-part. People still like to throw 'Slut' around when they're totally pissed with someone or are suffering rejection, but I don't see how name calling - the like of which is conducted broadly and often more damagingly against various minorities - is how the wider world actually views modern women.

If a feminist movement was seeking to stop guys using the words Slut and Whore because they're defamatory, well, there's a veritable dictionary of slurs worth tackling. I'm sure there's more to the iceberg of inequality than this.

[replayme]

Women are called sluts because they control access (and are the gate-keepers) to sex. If anyone thinks otherwise, then they're an idiot.

The most undesirable of females can still get laid without lifting a finger. Men have to work for it.

Whether people like it or not, men still have to pay for sex. Regardless of how you'd like to define it.

It's called Sexual Economics. And women are definitely at the top of the hierarchy there.

Nobody seems to talk about "equality" in that context. Least of all "sluts", as it absolves them from ever taking responsibility for their actions.

Edit: can't think of where else I should state the following. But I guess it's food for thought:

If anyone "invests" in you, they own you.
If you have to go up to someone, you give them the power.

[Skykid]

^

Methinks you have a skewed view there. You can't use derogatory slurs because men are constantly chasing pussy around, and genetically women are less predisposed to want to fuck constantly/immediately. Going back to my vague neanderthal cave intercourse-by-force analogy: men haven't evolved above genetic programming, but civilisation has moved on in such a way to disallow wanton procreation.

So you're often a bit like a vessel without a purpose, which is why pornography and religion are so popular: one relieves the urge, the other pacifies it.

Playing devil's advocate slightly, let it be known that the notion of women chasing bank accounts is hardly a fiction. Chinese culture has no discrimination against a woman marrying for financial security - in-fact it's considered sensible. The groom is expected to buy her a family home upon engagement and pay her family a large cash sum. The hotter and younger she is, the more marketable.

To me this seems almost backward to western feminism, in that it cuts out a proportion of poor guys looking for love and romance with the girl of their dreams. Instead the female takes advantage of her appearance to buy their way into the male's hard earned stability to enjoy a life of languor; most certainly a form of prostitution any way you look at it.

Perhaps human beings as a species are just predisposed to use whatever they can to their advantage. Men the allure of money and security, women their desirability to the opposite sex. It's all shades of grey of course and not explicit, there are old-fashioned lovers in-between, I'm just highlighting real-world behaviours that don't entirely tally with the cleaner ideals of empowered feminism.

[replayme]

The idea that women want sex less is a myth.

But yeah, I do agree with you to some extent. There is no "equality", and at least the Chinese kind of play it straight. None of this wishy washy "feminism" soap box politics.

Show me the money and I'll show you the bitchez!

[Obiwanshinobi]

I can't even imagine the identity crisis the poor kids being put through "gender neutral pre-school" (there actually is such a thing here in Sweden) - where boys are encouraged to play dress up and wear pink, girls encouraged to wear blue and play with cars and both being defined as "hen" (a made up Swedish gender neutral word - instead of "he" or "she". Yes, this is actually a thing) - are going to experience when they get out in actual society or - God forbid - try spending some time outside of civilization (hiking, joining an elite military unit etc. - gives a pretty good understanding of where we've come from, evolutionary wise).

If the entire generation shares the experience, they'll be fine. I'm against raising kids in any ivory tower, but generations are bound to differ no matter what. I already feel pretty alien amongst my compatriots born in nineteen-nineties, but sometimes a generational gap like that happens and what can we do?

[glitch]

Whether people like it or not, men still have to pay for sex. Regardless of how you'd like to define it.

you know, without the sarcasm this time, i really think this is a misperception (at least in the cultures and social circles i live in). women probably are indeed more choosy about who they'll have sex with, for obvious biological reasons (note that that's not to say they want it any less). on average (though with huge overlapping variation) it probably takes women longer to reach a sufficient level of trust to engage in sex (because: higher threshold). whatever a man "spends" on a women before that point might look like the "price" for sex to him (if he thinks with his dick), but that is totally not how female brains work.

i mean... please don't tell me you wanna classify stuff like "bonding" and "love" and such as "costs men make to get pussy".

[Skykid]

Whether people like it or not, men still have to pay for sex. Regardless of how you'd like to define it.

you know, without the sarcasm this time, i really think this is a misperception (at least in the cultures and social circles i live in). women probably are indeed more choosy about who they'll have sex with, for obvious biological reasons (note that that's not to say they want it any less). on average (though with huge overlapping variation) it probably takes women longer to reach a sufficient level of trust to engage in sex (because: higher threshold). whatever a man "spends" on a women before that point might look like the "price" for sex to him (if he thinks with his dick), but that is totally not how female brains work.

i mean... please don't tell me you wanna classify stuff like "bonding" and "love" and such as "costs men make to get pussy".

^ Valid point when discussing short term relations or flings. Of course a relationship built entirely on the girl being attractive marrying an ugly older man for the securities of his finance is one of the purest imaginable: both parties know what they want and where they stand. The man accepts he's unattractive but rich, won't be loved in any true sense, but gets sex on tap and a trophy to show off at business parties. Likewise she knows she doesn't need to give true love, but in return for putting out if and when required she has comfort and stability for life, perhaps even improving the fortunes of her family and future generations.

It's amicable, at least.

Unless it goes wrong. Mel Gibson might have a thing or two to say about that.

[glitch]

don't you think most relationships are Not Like That?

(have i just been super lucky so far?)

[Skykid]

don't you think most relationships are Not Like That?

(have i just been super lucky so far?)

Ha ha, of course! I'm just following on from the earlier comment regarding how certain women can be exploitative in a fashion that totally goes against core ideologies of feminism.

I believe in love and I believe love also takes work. Superficial relationships are certainly a minority, unless you're factoring in arranged marriages based on class and profit (in India etc.)

[replayme]

Whether people like it or not, men still have to pay for sex. Regardless of how you'd like to define it.

you know, without the sarcasm this time, i really think this is a misperception (at least in the cultures and social circles i live in). women probably are indeed more choosy about who they'll have sex with, for obvious biological reasons (note that that's not to say they want it any less). on average (though with huge overlapping variation) it probably takes women longer to reach a sufficient level of trust to engage in sex (because: higher threshold). whatever a man "spends" on a women before that point might look like the "price" for sex to him (if he thinks with his dick), but that is totally not how female brains work.

i mean... please don't tell me you wanna classify stuff like "bonding" and "love" and such as "costs men make to get pussy".

I don't know as to what Fairy Land you're living in, but women don't (and are largely incapable) of "love". For them, there's always a catch involved. Always.

Love (for women) is not unconditional.

And as for the notion of "bonding"? Yeah, sure. Until someone bigger and better comes along.

Oh, and if Brad Pitt (in his prime) showed up at some lady's door, you think she's going to have trouble "trusting" him? Give me a break!

[trap15]

I don't know as to what Fairy Land you're living in, but women don't (and are largely incapable) of "love". For them, there's always a catch involved. Always.

Love (for women) is not unconditional.

And as for the notion of "bonding"? Yeah, sure. Until someone bigger and better comes along.

Oh, and if Brad Pitt (in his prime) showed up at some lady's door, you think she's going to have trouble "trusting" him? Give me a break!

Holy shit dude...

[jonny5]

Whether people like it or not, men still have to pay for sex. Regardless of how you'd like to define it.

you know, without the sarcasm this time, i really think this is a misperception (at least in the cultures and social circles i live in). women probably are indeed more choosy about who they'll have sex with, for obvious biological reasons (note that that's not to say they want it any less). on average (though with huge overlapping variation) it probably takes women longer to reach a sufficient level of trust to engage in sex (because: higher threshold). whatever a man "spends" on a women before that point might look like the "price" for sex to him (if he thinks with his dick), but that is totally not how female brains work.

i mean... please don't tell me you wanna classify stuff like "bonding" and "love" and such as "costs men make to get pussy".

I don't know as to what Fairy Land you're living in, but women don't (and are largely incapable) of "love". For them, there's always a catch involved. Always.

Love (for women) is not unconditional.

And as for the notion of "bonding"? Yeah, sure. Until someone bigger and better comes along.

Oh, and if Brad Pitt (in his prime) showed up at some lady's door, you think she's going to have trouble "trusting" him? Give me a break!

You are a sad, sad little man. Have you ever actually been with a women? Chicks totally dig misogynist's. It sounds like this whole 'women are incapable of love, only after money, BBD, etc' schtick of yours is just an elaborate fantasy you have constructed so you don't have to admit that maybe the reason chicks don't want to be with you is because you aren't a very nice person and they don't enjoy your company.

[drauch]

I don't know as to what Fairy Land you're living in, but women don't (and are largely incapable) of "love". For them, there's always a catch involved. Always.

Love (for women) is not unconditional.

And as for the notion of "bonding"? Yeah, sure. Until someone bigger and better comes along.

Oh, and if Brad Pitt (in his prime) showed up at some lady's door, you think she's going to have trouble "trusting" him? Give me a break!

*NOT SPEAKING FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

[replayme]

You are a sad, sad little man. Have you ever actually been with a women? Chicks totally dig misogynist's. It sounds like this whole 'women are incapable of love, only after money, BBD, etc' schtick of yours is just an elaborate fantasy you have constructed so you don't have to admit that maybe the reason chicks don't want to be with you is because you aren't a very nice person and they don't enjoy your company.

I don't know man... Do you even know me?

Have you actually considered that you're the hateful creature spouting bile? Because to the best of my knowledge, I didn't ever make a personal attack (unlike you).

Maybe I just revealed a reality that you're not willing to accept. Carry on shooting the messenger. Hur hur.