Women.

[Thu'um]

any way...women have proved them selves to be able to hold predominet spots in socsiaties. And question is, where they ever that reppressed? sure they were forbidon to ( wait remembering taliban) ....nevr mind

[Redeemer]

any way...women have proved them selves to be able to hold predominet spots in socsiaties. And question is, where they ever that reppressed? sure they were forbidon to ( wait remembering taliban) ....nevr mind

You're really young, ajc, so I don't expect you to be very aware on matters like these, but women were treated terribly, many years ago. This page here may give you an insight into how it was about 100 years ago. Keep in mind that American women were given the right to vote in the 1920s.

[Thu'um]

You're really young, ajc, so I don't expect you to be very aware on matters like these, but women were treated terribly, many years ago. This page here may give you an insight into how it was about 100 years ago. Keep in mind that American women were given the right to vote in the 1920s.

i know, thats exactly why i took it back as soon as i thought about it

[Sabre]

The traditional role is long dead imo. That said, I do find feminist interesting in the way they percieve the patrearchy. I never bothered, but I wanted to do a comic or 2 where I am the only guy in the world to not realise the patrearchy. As in, I'm getting orders to do stuff and having no idea what they are talking about.

[Drasiana]

The traditional role is long dead imo. That said, I do find feminist interesting in the way they percieve the patrearchy. I never bothered, but I wanted to do a comic or 2 where I am the only guy in the world to not realise the patrearchy. As in, I'm getting orders to do stuff and having no idea what they are talking about.

Wait, what exactly are you saying? That women do have indisuputably equal rights and that there are no current societal biases to or against any gender in numerous specific situations? And that you're the only person who realizes this? Sorry if I'm coming off as dickish but this post is kind of sans-context, I'm not really sure what you're responding to.

[Sabre]

Wait, what exactly are you saying? That women do have indisuputably equal rights and that there are no current societal biases to or against any gender in numerous specific situations? And that you're the only person who realizes this? Sorry if I'm coming off as dickish but this post is kind of sans-context, I'm not really sure what you're responding to.

Woman have equal rights in a sence. Most of the stuff is in place, what inequalities do exsist also has a similar or comparible issue on the male side.

Feminist however are interesting in that they are like a warrior race that has ran out of foes to fight and gone insane. Atm feminists have this crazy conspirasy belief that men, all of them, are all part of a grand conspiracy to keep women down that is perfectly hidden from the female masses. I shouldn't have to explain that the idea is unrealistic on so many levels.

Back when I used to draw comics I wanted to explore the idea of this being real, and that I/1 guy happen to be the only man in the world who is unaware of it. Let's say they are right, that there is a grand conspiracy consisting of half the population of earth without 1 wistle blower, all organized and perfect. What if the was one guy who was just oblivious, how weird would that be? eg. Getting a phone call at 3am telling him "It's time, you know what to do." and him not having the slightest clue, but going along with it anyway.

[Xortberg]

eg. Getting a phone call at 3am telling him "It's time, you know what to do." and him not having the slightest clue, but going along with it anyway.

This reminds me so much of the beginning of Kickassia. It's time, indeed.

[Drasiana]

The FemiNazis you're describing are an unfortunately loud minority in feminists.

And there are still opponents to women's rights, or gender standards, or rape blaming. "The right to vote" isn't the be-all-end-all of achieving equal rights, but most true feminists DO stand for equality and won't kick you in the balls for opening the door for them. Basically it's an aim to deconstruct gender roles to the benefit of both genders, and yes, this means helping men too; they aren't without their share of discriminations as well.

Interestingly enough, men suffering here is in part a result of female gender stereotypes. "That man's crying? LOL, WHAT A GIRL" "Are you wearing pink? Only gays and queers do that!" "Your girlfriend is abusing you? Man up!" It's like the worst thing a man can expect to be is a woman, and they have to maintain an air of SUPER TESTOSTERONE MACHISMO to avoid being eeew a sissy girl. Likewise there's things women can't do without being labelled a "dyke"; my mom accused me for years of "wanting to be a boy" because I don't really like dresses. Lolwut. But the fear of being mispercieved as gay or "feminine" by men seems to be a more deeply-rooted fear, at least in North American culture. Girls can wear pants, but men can't wear dresses; that sort of thing.

There is still sexism everywhere, is the basic idea here. No, there isn't some secret conspiracy by all men, but there are a lot of societally-accepted roles and biases that even women themselves adhere to because it's what they're raised to know. A lot of it is unconcious, but everyone has their tics and assumptions about the opposite sex.

[Sabre]

The FemiNazis you're describing are an unfortunately loud minority in feminists.

And there are still opponents to women's rights, or gender standards, or rape blaming. "The right to vote" isn't the be-all-end-all of achieving equal rights, but most true feminists DO stand for equality and won't kick you in the balls for opening the door for them. Basically it's an aim to deconstruct gender roles to the benefit of both genders, and yes, this means helping men too; they aren't without their share of discriminations as well.

Interestingly enough, men suffering here is in part a result of female gender stereotypes. "That man's crying? LOL, WHAT A GIRL" "Are you wearing pink? Only gays and queers do that!" "Your girlfriend is abusing you? Man up!" It's like the worst thing a man can expect to be is a woman, and they have to maintain an air of SUPER TESTOSTERONE MACHISMO to avoid being eeew a sissy girl. Likewise there's things women can't do without being labelled a "dyke"; my mom accused me for years of "wanting to be a boy" because I don't really like dresses. Lolwut. But the fear of being mispercieved as gay or "feminine" by men seems to be a more deeply-rooted fear, at least in North American culture. Girls can wear pants, but men can't wear dresses; that sort of thing.

There is still sexism everywhere, is the basic idea here. No, there isn't some secret conspiracy by all men, but there are a lot of societally-accepted roles and biases that even women themselves adhere to because it's what they're raised to know. A lot of it is unconcious, but everyone has their tics and assumptions about the opposite sex.

I've been told a few times the fem nazis as you call them are the minority, but it seems to be the only kind I come across.

I'm aware of feminist issues, and well aware of masculine ones. Where we live will also factor into it.

I disagree with the idea that people go to gender roles (yum) because of socity, maybe some pressure, but not much. I was listening to a podcast on about a similar topic. It would take an age to get into. It will suffice to say that there are some preferences. eg. Even without social pressures, people and even monkeys will gravate to certain roles out of preference. Women will TEND to go for dolls and cooking toys whereas men will go for weapons and machines. Point is, we are a long way from Billy Eliot.

Also, while the series is hit and miss, this video is a definate hit imo. The bit about working mothers is dumb though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbucM_vyxw8

[Drasiana]

I disagree with the idea that people go to gender roles (yum) because of socity, maybe some pressure, but not much.

No, it's entirely society. Women are expected to behave in a way that is "ladylike", and are reprimanded for not following those behaviours. That isn't "natural gravitation", that's societal preening, be it via the family, education, or media.

Women will TEND to go for dolls and cooking toys whereas men will go for weapons and machines.

The only reason this is any way valid is because children's toys are marketed to the specific gender. You don't see boys in doll commercials and you don't see girls in Hot Wheels commercials (I use that because "weapons" aren't really marketed here), and of course the respective gender will identify with what they see on the screen. There isn't some hidden, evolutionary gene that dictates that little girls want to cook and little boys want to destroy shit. Cooking toys and baby dolls were always considered the ideal toys for little girls because it was "preparing" them for life as a housewife.

For a more modern perspective, however, let's look at video games, as many classic "children's toys" are slowly taking a backseat.

Forty percent of all game players are women. In fact' date=' women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (33 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (20 percent).[/quote']

-Via the Entertainment Software Association

Yet, very few games go out of their way to be "female-oriented". Games like Cooking Mama are few and cannot possibly account for this statistic. Just a quick perusal of deviantArt will show you hundreds of girls that like "male-oriented" games for the same reasons that males do.*

And of course you'll encounter more vocal FemiNazis than feminists. That's kind of the tip-off of FemiNazis; they won't shut up.

*_{Yes, there are shippers, but there are just as many male shippers and all you need to do is state your dislike for Fox/Krystal to find them.} :trollface:

[Sabre]

No, it's entirely society. Women are expected to behave in a way that is "ladylike", and are reprimanded for not following those behaviours. That isn't "natural gravitation", that's societal preening, be it via the family, education, or media.

The only reason this is any way valid is because children's toys are marketed to the specific gender. You don't see boys in doll commercials and you don't see girls in Hot Wheels commercials (I use that because "weapons" aren't really marketed here), and of course the respective gender will identify with what they see on the screen. There isn't some hidden, evolutionary gene that dictates that little girls want to cook and little boys want to destroy shit. Cooking toys and baby dolls were always considered the ideal toys for little girls because it was "preparing" them for life as a housewife.

For a more modern perspective, however, let's look at video games, as many classic "children's toys" are slowly taking a backseat.

-Via the Entertainment Software Association

Yet, very few games go out of their way to be "female-oriented". Games like Cooking Mama are few and cannot possibly account for this statistic. Just a quick perusal of deviantArt will show you hundreds of girls that like "male-oriented" games for the same reasons that males do.*

And of course you'll encounter more vocal FemiNazis than feminists. That's kind of the tip-off of FemiNazis; they won't shut up.

*_{Yes, there are shippers, but there are just as many male shippers and all you need to do is state your dislike for Fox/Krystal to find them.}

Nice. Completely ignore the bit you don't like and repeat rehotoric.

"Even without social pressures, people and even monkeys will gravate to certain roles out of preference."

http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/the-reality-check/62-episodes/357-the-reality-check-142

[Drasiana]

Transl. "BAWWW WHY AREN'T YOU AGREEING WITH ME?"

You only JUST cited the podcast, how could I ignore something that you didn't even include in your post? And don't start with me about ignoring anything considering that's exactly what you just did. Rhetoric? Really? This is the second time you've insulted me for using WORDS to get my opinion across.

And no, I'm also not going to take a video from a site whose tagline is "Truth, Lies, and the War on Men" seriously, unless you're citing it as an example of delusion.

And then you go and cite Ottawa Skeptics. Yeah, that's legit. You realize that just because someone put it online doesn't mean it's the absolute truth, right? I at least cited a website that gathers market information, and not the guy that begins the podcast by saying he's going to talk about video games while not really knowing anything about video games. You're detracting from this discussion by going "Here, let's listen to these OTHER guys have a discussion that I just happen to agree with".

Really? Monkeys? Have you noticed that people aren't monkeys? Monkeys also throw their shit at people, but I shouldn't use that as an argument against them because you've proven yourself as being capable of the same.

Long and short of it is, I'm skeptical of your skepticism.

[Sabre]

Transl. "BAWWW WHY AREN'T YOU AGREEING WITH ME?"

You only JUST cited the podcast, how could I ignore something that you didn't even include in your post? And don't start with me about ignoring anything considering that's exactly what you just did. Rhetoric? Really? This is the second time you've insulted me for using WORDS to get my opinion across.

And then you go and cite Ottawa Skeptics. Yeah, that's legit. You realize that just because someone put it online doesn't mean it's the absolute truth, right? I at least cited a website that gathers market information, and not the guy that begins the podcast by saying he's going to talk about video games while not really knowing anything about video games. You're detracting from this discussion by going "Here, let's listen to these OTHER guys have a discussion that I just happen to agree with".

Really? Monkeys? Have you noticed that people aren't monkeys? Monkeys also throw their shit at people, but I shouldn't use that as an argument against them because you've proven yourself as being capable of the same.

The fact you never listened is telling. The cite all their scientic sources, but you're not interested in facts it appears.

Anyway, your falling below the standards of debate here, resorting to name calling.

[Drasiana]

I'm the one falling below standards, when you're the one who's been blatantly disregarding anything I've said.

For the record, I did listen, and the funny part is that they're kind of supporting what I'm saying; he's saying it is highly influenced by society, and not just adult society but playground society. As well, the "scientific studies" they cite are highly focused on animals, which is rediculous in case of founded truth.

I never said that girls DON'T like dolls and boys DON'T like cars, just that it's highly influenced by others what they AREN'T allowed to play with. You might've picked up on that if you ever paid attention to anything I said.

I did stop listening when they started talking about conspiracy theorists, though.

[Sabre]

I'm the one falling below standards, when you're the one who's been blatantly disregarding anything I've said.

For the record, I did listen, and the funny part is that they're kind of supporting what I'm saying; he's saying it is highly influenced by society, and not just adult society but playground society. As well, the "scientific studies" they cite are highly focused on animals, which is rediculous in case of founded truth.

I never said that girls DON'T like dolls and boys DON'T like cars, just that it's highly influenced by others what they AREN'T allowed to play with. You might've picked up on that if you ever paid attention to anything I said.

I did stop listening when they started talking about conspiracy theorists, though.

but yet you still believe it is entirely socity driven?

[Milkyway64]

Dras, meet Sabre, longtime buttmonkey of SFO who has won maybe one debate and turned the rest into dramafest denials that he is right and can't be wrong.

Just thought I should point that out before you go insane from rage later on.

[Drasiana]

@Sabre: Yes.

Girls like dolls. Boys like cars. Of course they do. But boys are made fun of if they play with dolls and girls are made fun of if they play with cars. Parents will buy toys suited to the respective gender based on how they were raised with them, and out of fear of somehow "raising their child the wrong gender". But then take a look at more unisex toys; balls, Etch-a-Sketches, board games like Sorry or Monopoly. There doesn't appear to be any gender specification here, so why the odd specification with dolls and cars? It's because they relate to a societal role being taught at an early age, even unintentionally.

My brother loved playing with my Barbies, even though no one ever bought them for him, but he didn't exactly turn into some simpering gay stereotype. Likewise, I loved playing with Godzilla action figures...and Barbies at the same time.

What did you like to play with as a kid, Sabre? Did you ever feel pressured by the same or opposite sex, and make decisions about what you played with based on how you fit into the playground dynamic?

[Sabre]

!!! I have spotted where you misunderstood my original claim, and thus wasted all this time.

Do socital pressures exsist, yes. But I don't think it's all 100% socitiy. I think there is some natural bias. There would have to be to create that devide in the first place.

One example would be blue and pink. Pre 1900 is was red for boys and blue for women (blue had something to do with the virgin marry iirc) that is pure socitiy.

Computers had no bias when they were invented, but yet at pressent are male dominated, and the few women I have met in IT don't much care for it. There was no old boys club or anything of that nature. Women simply weren't interested in computers.

A better example would be looks. There are local messures of looks. Some places like women fat, some thin. High or low cheekbones, ect. Even time can change these preferences. Then there are global messures. Good skin and hair mainly. These are messures of health.

So, while you believe a 100% socitiy gender role, I believe its 20 nature, 80 socitiy.

[Drasiana]

I actually never misunderstood you, except for your original post because I wasn't actually sure what you were saying. My second post wasn't attacking you either, it was just elaborating and musing over other ideas I thought could contribute to the discussion. If you'd read earlier in the topic, I actually said the exact same thing about the "girls like pink, boys like blue" issue.

Though I still disagree that it's OVERLY natural (your ratio isn't unheard of though), and believe that almost every difference between the sexes boils down to men just being physically stronger than women, thus considered to be superior, which is founded in many different cultures. Though in some situations I imagined it made sense, as in "send the physically superior out to kill food while the ones we use to make babies stay safe at home", but that mentality has been obsolete for years.

And there was bias around the invention of computers, and the scientific community as a whole. Female scientists weren't exactly welcomed with open arms. As for modern day interest in computers, I don't doubt that there isn't a "boy's club" mentality. But a lot of that discrimination comes from within girls themselves. Though these notions are rapidly deteriorating as computers become more vital to everyday life, it was still common growing up to see computers associated with boys. I'm not entirely sure why, because girls had to use them as much as boys did, but it was more accepted for boys to be "geeks", whereas it was unheard of for girls. Anyways, "using computers" isn't something that's programmed into our DNA, so I'm not sure where the foundation in having technological interest being associated with genetics lies.

With looks, were you saying that is societal or natural?

[Sabre]

I think that men believing they are superior is a bit extreme. Yes, there is a strong element of that, but as with the glass cellar mentioned earlier, men also protected women from alot of crap. That's the past though.

Looks is based on both. naturally people will go for general good health. (let's not derail the thread with gold diggers, wife beaters ect) but socitiy does determine alot, if not most of it. eg. The current trend for 6 pack abs in men.

The example you give as man as a hunter while the women stay home is an artifact of when men were being 'built', as is adreniline, competition, ect. In women this same idea comes across as a nurturing instinct. While it is by no means an excuse and a standard we must all follow, it does explain why more men are into sports then women, and hence some natural influance.

[Drasiana]

Men did believe they were superior in many situations; just look at the numerous societies where women were sold or traded or forbidden to speak to men. I'm not saying that's the standard NOWADAYS, but it was never exactly uncommon.

And currently, men aren't drastically more interested in sports than women, men's teams just get more noteriety in things like the NHL, etc. But in schools there are often full teams for both men and women, as well as representation in the Olympics. In my high school there were as many female jocks as male, and that wasn't considered too unusual.

Also assuming that the "nuturing instinct" is female-exclusive is detrimental to men, particularly those in custody battles for their children (not saying you're assuming this, this is just a general comment towards that mentality).

I agree that looks are influenced by both. I can't explain why I'm attracted to particular types, I just am, but then of course we have things in media we're supposed to look up to, and body-shaming for skinny people and overweight people, men and women alike. That opens a ton of other issues that can be related to gender roles, too.