Print Page | Close Window

Feminism, at 40

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: GENERAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Women's History
Forum Description: Discuss women in history and other historical topics from a feminine perspective!
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=125912
Printed Date: 21 Nov 2018 at 00:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Feminism, at 40
Posted By: Sparten
Subject: Feminism, at 40
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 11:30
The say life begins at 40. The wave of Feminism that hit the western world in 1970 (couple of years either way, but hey makes the maths easierr). Has it actually accomplished what it set out to accomplish? Equality?
 
Or has it failed? Sure you have more women than men taking degrees now in the US and the UK, but thats i) also the case in Saudi Arabia and Iran and ii) also it should be pointed out that the statistics are only true if you look at college as a whole, the more valuable degrees such as hard sciences, law and economics are either completely dominated by men or still have women under represented.
 
Women are for the most part excluded from positions of influence and policy making, positions which require a lifestyle which is perhaps less condusive to women with aspirations of family.
 
 
So whats the verdict.



Replies:
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 12:13
While most now agree women should have equal rights and opportunities, the situation remains the same as before; women who are leading politicians, managers, scientists, artists etc. are still the exception rather than the rule. It was the hope of the feminists that once women had the same rights and opportunities as men, they would seek to benefit from the new possibilities and raise their stature to equal that of men. Why hasn't it happened?
 
Women are different from men not just physically but mentally. The standards by which we measure success, such as being a successful politician, businessman, scientist or artist, arose long before feminism and were shaped in accordance with male proclivities. A few women are more like men than others and they will be able to make the most of their newfound opportunities, but most women aren't and do not derive satisfaction from being a leader, from competing and overcoming rivals. This way of deriving satisfaction has been bred into the male sex as those with a competitive trait are more likely to pass on their genes, whereas no such trait has ever been required of women to do the same. The traits that enabled women to pass on their genes, and therefore the dominant ones today, are beauty, sociability, sexual integrity and motherhood; all traits that make them ideal vessels for men who wish to pass on their genes. Hence you will find most women are less concerned with improving their competitive potential, whether physical or intellectual, and more with maintaining their beauty and social relations in order to maximise the chances of becoming pregnant. In addition women are the recipients and carriers of offspring and are thus more bound to the reproductive function than men, who can cause several pregnancies in a matter of minutes and then forget all about it and be on their way, giving them greater freedom to follow pursuits that aren't directly related to reproduction.
 
So my conclusion is feminism hasn't had more wideranging effects because giving women equal rights and opportunities does not amount to making women biological replicas of men, and that's what would have been necessary were feminism to have its intended effects.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 13:20
They have for the most part combatted legal discrimination. In fact they are now the 'victims' of positive discrimination - when it comes to maternity leave (Why not just call it 'parental leave' and allow one of the parents to claim the 12 weeks or whatever it is?) and have legal perogative when it comes to custody of their children, at the expense of the father.

Of course feminists have no problem in ensuring the perpetuation of positive discrimination.

Another issue is the quota system, which orders employers to have around 30-40% of their top level staff as female. In my opinion affirmative action harms and taints the virtue of hard work, and only serves to alienate men who may be better qualified but are overlooked by virtue of their sex.

Feminism still has a long long way to go. For a start it could take a look at it's own hypocrisy.

P.S- Ivana Bacik, a perrenial candidate for the Dáil (Parliament) here in Ireland has been calling for a quote system to be introduced to select candidates for our parliament. The cheek and lunacy of this is self evident - this from the same woman who has run unsuccesfully for the Dáil four times in a row.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 14:23
That women have legal prerogative to child custody is rational; it's part of their programming to nurse children, whereas men are programmed to make as many as possible. That's not to say men don't have an emotional attachment, but it is not as fundamental and in most cases it will be easier for the man to cope with the loss. Of course there are also cases where the woman is clearly unfit to raise the child and the father is given custody, so it doesn't mean bad mothers will be favoured over good fathers.
 
The quota system is based on an assumption that I am almost certain is erronous; that the employers, being mostly male, have prejudices against female employees and intentionally favour men, and that forcing them to hire women will make them overcome their prejudices and lead to gender equality in the job market. I don't think most employers intentionally discriminate women, I think most employers act in the best interest of their company and hire whoever is best qualified regardless of gender, race or religion, but women will in most cases be unable to compete in the top league for reasons stated in my previous post.
 
I don't know about Ireland, but here gender equality in the workplace works both ways. F.ex. where I work I'd say there are about 70-80% women and during the recruitment process my gender was an advantage.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 15:00
Well, feminism goes back at least to the 19th century, as a byproduct of the abolitionist movement.

Have the accomplished something?

Let's see: women in most Western countries can own property and vote. Yes, that is a huge change, a lot of it stemming from the last 100 years.

Specifically since the 70s, there has been a lot more female politicians and heads of large corporations around the world. Women having a job isn't considered taboo in most places, and neither it is for them to study or be heads of households. (The reality is that in most of the world, the women are, in fact, the heads of households, but stating this clearly wasn't acceptable.)

And together with access to jobs, there is the issue of divorce becoming acceptable. This is good for women, since they have to deal with the brunt of having to handle a good for nothing man or an abusive man. Being able to dump guys and this being considered okay was a great victory.

And there is a lot more respect for assault towards women. Even back in the 70s, rape cases could be easily dismissed if the lawyer for the attacker made a convincing case that the woman wanted it. I know that this problem still exists today, but not the way it was back in the 70s.

And the culture in a lot of countries has changed for the better. Gratuitous insults towards women are not considered polite or acceptable to many people in the West.

So yes, I think it has worked out very well. Not perfect, but no social change is perfect. Overall, as a movement, it has been one of the most successful one in the West.



Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 15:23
Feminism has divided into several currents, each with its own agenda, that it is impossible to generalize about it. Some feminists campaign for the equality in opportunities, while others campaign for the equality of outcome.

In my judgement, as far as the equality of opportunities goes, it has come a long way. 40 years ago you barely saw a woman working as a doctor, lawyer, college professor, scientist, engineer, policewoman, or professional soldier, nowadays there are plenty, because these doors have opened their doors to women and all women who wanted to persue these professions found their way in.
Nevertheless, there is still discrimination in certain areas, such as salaries. It has been proven that even in countries with high degrees of equality such as the USA, the European Union, and Russia, women working on the same post in the same profession are paid less than men, and the higher up in the heirarchy the greater the difference.

As far as the equality of outcome is concerned, I believe full equality will never be achieved because as Regimund has wisely pointed out: men and woman are not mentally the same. We will never have as many female construction workers, car mechanics, firefighters, engineers as men because fewer women are interested in choosing these professions. This is not a question of discrimination, but a difference in natual aptitude. The difference is comparable to the fact that certain hobbies attract more men than women, while others attract more women than men.

I also agree with the fact that leadership roles will always be dominated by men because the sexual selection criteria between men and women is different. The most "sexually-desirable" men are the most successful, powerful, and influential, while the most "sexually-desirable" females are the prettiest and youthful. The sexual selection process in itself would encourage men to focus their energy in climbing the career ladder, and women to dedicate time and effort into making themselves beautiful.

I know this is an incredibly politically incorrect thing to say, but it is the general observation of what is happening around the world.




 


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 19:08
I can say that feminism has brought more potential for the working woman, more rights to oppressed women and more legal safeguards for all women. Just don't ask me for proof. KiddingSmile

Just don't ask me to adhere to some of the genetic hogwash going around in these circles. According to Reginmund women are good for one thing: Hence you will find most women are less concerned with improving their competitive potential, whether physical or intellectual, and more with maintaining their beauty and social relations in order to maximise the chances of becoming pregnant.

I thought we, as civilized cavemen, outgrew our macho outlook on the fairer sex. Yet sexism is alive and rampant though seemingly disguised in suave, demeaning tones that are not even close to reality. Less concerned with improving their competitive potential? Are you kidding me? Women are so competitive that us 'guys' get blindsided all the time by their fancy and utmost competitive ways.

Maximizing chances of getting pregnant!
I like kinda that. Hi, I'm Seko, would you like to maximize your chances here honey?Heart

Yet, again the notion that this type of antiquated thinking still exists is beyond my imagination. Not only are women in general as competitive as men in my experience but they are as driven by potential as any other guy.

 Feminism is a re-emergent modern concept whose principal dates back to the stone ages. Justice takes precedence over inequality all the time in any healthy functioning society. That is what I see feminism as:  benefits of women seeking rights.




Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 19:17
Equal Rights for women has had a more beneficial effect than those mentioned above: 1) fewer women (percentage wise) are outliving their spouses; 2) female fertility rates have plummeted.Evil Smile Now, if we could only train them for front-line fighting and actually carry it out...we would resolve the unemployment problem.Ermm 

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 19:47
Porn and Sexual liberation.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 21:59
Seko,

Quoting that men and women are by nature different isn't necessarily sexism, it's reality.
Even after the so-called sexual liberation, women and men still get sexually aroused through different mechanisms, while men tend to be more attracted (although not exclusively) to the physical features of women, women tend to be more attracted to the status, strength, wealth, and material success in men. Some of these instincts, I believe, are inborn.
Of course when it comes to looking for long-term partners personality is also a big factor for both sexes, but the "key" factor that makes a man or woman more attractive to the opposite sex is status and looks.

All you have to do is to listen to a women's conversation about men, and then to a men's conversation about women. The things they talk about are different. When talking about boyfriends, women tend to enquire about the profession and education level of the man and information such as whether he owns property etc..., while these criteria never figure among men's comments about their girlfriends.

As far as I know, in the vast majority of cases, women tend to look for husbands who earn more money than them or have a higher position than them. Even very successful professional women tend to look for a man who's even more successful.... (of course there are always exceptions, but the general trend does exist).

As long as this sexual selection criteria exists, most of the leader and elite roles will always be dominated by men.



Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 23:53
Calvo, I wasn't born yesterday nor am I a supporter of femnazis, just woman's rights. Smile That being said, yes we were born with different tools and instincts. Now what does that have to do with giving a woman her fair share of the male dominated pie???

Isn't your talk about profession among same sex peers a bit biased Calvo? Has it ever dawned on you that the scenario is more cultural and economically related than just by sexual affinity alone. It would not be out of place to have a group of men sitting around a camp fire talking about living the good life that their wive's provide. He is out shooting pheasants while she is busting her back as a bank clerk. I counsel these types of couples many times cause in my recession laden state those who work run the ship. Women make good skippers. Next time try not to sound so sure of yourself.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:



As far as I know, in the vast majority of cases, women tend to look for husbands who earn more money than them or have a higher position than them.


That is because they do not want to marry an economic liability by marrying someone beneath her means. And...the very same can be said about men marrying into money, no?

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:



Even very successful professional women tend to look for a man who's even more successful.... (of course there are always exceptions, but the general trend does exist).
Now that is plain silly. Where is the research that shows women of 'higher' means want to become involved in a relationship in which they are subordinate?

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


As long as this sexual selection criteria exists, most of the leader and elite roles will always be dominated by men.


This I agree with. Men still assume that they (we) have the right to make it harder for a woman to be our equal in pay, in chores and such is only diluting his own mind assuming that we are inherently 'better' than 'they' are. On the other hand, any society that selectively chooses to demean the capability of a group of persons based on sex is doing an injustice to their own society.



Posted By: Dawn-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 00:02
bahhhh  LOL  I still can't believe what I'm seeing .... a group of men debating feminism.  


ok now that I have my self under control  I will give my opinion on the matter .... wait after I finish my kitchen duties 


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 00:09
lol Dawnage, I'll take those towels and dry off the dishes!


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 01:12
Originally posted by Dawn Dawn wrote:

bahhhh  LOL  I still can't believe what I'm seeing .... a group of men debating feminism.  


ok now that I have my self under control  I will give my opinion on the matter .... wait after I finish my kitchen duties 


LOL


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 03:35
OK folks, I am about to initiate a new rights movement: Let's hear it for Manism and the freedom to plunder and pillage in a pique of machismo. And while we are at it, do not forget to round up all the virgins! We've been repressed and forced to suppress our more manly characteristics for far to long!
 
Just take a look at what these feminists have done to us:
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 04:42
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 


Okay, i give up. Is it Joe Biden....? Dick Cheney...? Or Lady Gaga....


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 07:33
Seko,

I by no means justify traditional gender roles, nor am I against granting women equal opportunities. All I was saying is that according to my observations, some of the differences between the sexes is innate. Of course you can find women interested in male-dominated hobbies, and vice versa, but there is a general trend in differences, and I believe that it is important that women who enter male-dominated professions do not face any obstacles.

Not long ago my friends and I did a survey. Each of us had to put down our 10 favorite films ever and share it with the rest. About 20-30 of us participated. Surprisingly, by looking at the films selected, you could more or less guess the gender of the person.

Regarding the financial aspects, I have every reason to believe that what I've stated is very true, not that I agree with it nor do I believe that it's morally correct, but it is the case for the majority (so far). Many more women are willing to marry a man because of money than men are to marry a woman. Personally I dislike women who do so, but that does not change the fact that many of them are like that.
How many times have you heard a man ask their friends about the girls they're dating: "what car does she have? what position does she work in? does she live in her own property?"
How often have you heard a woman ask their friends these same questions about the men they're dating?

Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, but in general, most women prefer to (consciously or unconsciously) pair up with someone who earns more than they do. Personally I don't mind having a wife or girlfriend earning more than I do, but many women do seem to find men earning less than them considerably less attractive.

Cultural differences do have a factor, but it isn't everything. Put it this way, 40 years ago almost all doctors and engineers were men, today, why have more women chosen medicine and less have chosen engineering? Don't think it's because that in engineering there's more gender discrimination, it's just that the medical profession attracts more women by aptitude.

In fact, some of the professions with the least amount of gender-based discrimination are rather male-dominated, such as Information Technology. Among software development and other high-tech professions, promotion tends to be awarded more by merit, and the gender-gap between salaries is almost non-existent. Despite this level of equality, the percentage of women working in technological professions is considerably lower than men because fewer of them are interested, and I don't see any problem with that.

On the other hand, other professions that have a very high female participation, such as sales and even in fashion, there IS a very high level of gender-biassed discrimination....

I am not against feminism in general, but what I believe in is the equality of opportunities, not the equality of outcome.









Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 09:40
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

So yes, I think it has worked out very well. Not perfect, but no social change is perfect. Overall, as a movement, it has been one of the most successful one in the West.

 
Yes, equal rights and opportunities for women is a truly monumental shift in human history which is well on its way to transform gender relations all over the world. It is a global revolution of the human condition comparable to agriculture and the industrialization. Yet as always societial shifts are not followed by a biological evolution that adapts to the new circumstances, so that we are always in conflict with the structures we create. When given equal opportunities men and women will use that freedom differently in accordance with their generally gender-specific proclivities, so that the results will differ. The challenge for feminism today is not making women more similar to men (impossible), but making the typically female choices as valued as the male ones.
 
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Just don't ask me to adhere to some of the genetic hogwash going around in these circles. According to Reginmund women are good for one thing: Hence you will find most women are less concerned with improving their competitive potential, whether physical or intellectual, and more with maintaining their beauty and social relations in order to maximise the chances of becoming pregnant.

I thought we, as civilized cavemen, outgrew our macho outlook on the fairer sex. Yet sexism is alive and rampant though seemingly disguised in suave, demeaning tones that are not even close to reality. Less concerned with improving their competitive potential? Are you kidding me? Women are so competitive that us 'guys' get blindsided all the time by their fancy and utmost competitive ways.
 
It is my fate to always be misunderstood in the worst possible ways. Of course women are only "good for one thing" in the same way men are only good for one thing; reproduction. Everything in the human condition is centered on that crux. My point was a bit more complex; males and females both want to pass on their genes, but they achieve it through different means, and the way success is measured in society has grown in accordance with the male's way of maximising his chances of doing so. This is why even given equal opportunities, women will not become equal because their choices tend to be different and follow paths that don't lead to the roles considered prestigious by the established male-oriented tradition, for the reasons stated. The same would be true for a man making typically female choices.
 
Originally posted by Al Jasses Al Jasses wrote:

Porn and Sexual liberation.
 
Al-Jassas
 
You cannot have social equality without sexual equality. Again, biology makes it so that a woman who is sexually active is by most considered less desirable whereas the opposite is true for a man, nevertheless it's a sign of progress when women can be as openly sexual as porn actresses and still be accepted by society. Now don't any of you get ahead of yourselves and intentionally misunderstand by saying "Reginmund thinks all girls should be porn actresses" or some such nonsensical extrapolation I've come expect; it's merely that the choice of being sexually exhibisionistic is open for both men and women that I consider to be a step in the right direction for gender equality.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 13:15
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Just don't ask me to adhere to some of the genetic hogwash going around in these circles. According to Reginmund women are good for one thing: Hence you will find most women are less concerned with improving their competitive potential, whether physical or intellectual, and more with maintaining their beauty and social relations in order to maximise the chances of becoming pregnant.

I thought we, as civilized cavemen, outgrew our macho outlook on the fairer sex. Yet sexism is alive and rampant though seemingly disguised in suave, demeaning tones that are not even close to reality. Less concerned with improving their competitive potential? Are you kidding me? Women are so competitive that us 'guys' get blindsided all the time by their fancy and utmost competitive ways.
 
It is my fate to always be misunderstood in the worst possible ways. Of course women are only "good for one thing" in the same way men are only good for one thing; reproduction. Everything in the human condition is centered on that crux. My point was a bit more complex; males and females both want to pass on their genes, but they achieve it through different means, and the way success is measured in society has grown in accordance with the male's way of maximising his chances of doing so. This is why even given equal opportunities, women will not become equal because their choices tend to be different and follow paths that don't lead to the roles considered prestigious by the established male-oriented tradition, for the reasons stated. The same would be true for a man making typically female choices.
 



Then make yourself clearer next time. LOL Afterall, all we are going by is your direct quotes!

 Equality in total physiology is not a point of contention with woman's libbers is it? I am under the impression that the main concern is to become equal with men in opportunities. Don't need a big penis for that!Wink


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 13:37
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

Seko,

I by no means justify traditional gender roles, nor am I against granting women equal opportunities. All I was saying is that according to my observations, some of the differences between the sexes is innate. Of course you can find women interested in male-dominated hobbies, and vice versa, but there is a general trend in differences, and I believe that it is important that women who enter male-dominated professions do not face any obstacles.


Good observation. I tend to see the same things too. Now what?Smile

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


Not long ago my friends and I did a survey. Each of us had to put down our 10 favorite films ever and share it with the rest. About 20-30 of us participated. Surprisingly, by looking at the films selected, you could more or less guess the gender of the person.


Not long ago me and my friends made an observation. We were laughing our asses off during the course of a most crude, sexually laden conversation. Boy! Those women sure can tell a mean story.Big smile


Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


Regarding the financial aspects, I have every reason to believe that what I've stated is very true, not that I agree with it nor do I believe that it's morally correct, but it is the case for the majority (so far). Many more women are willing to marry a man because of money than men are to marry a woman. Personally I dislike women who do so, but that does not change the fact that many of them are like that.


Many women are looking for provisions, just like their guy counterparts. So be it via marriage, education for higher earning potential or tips as a waitress. And don't tell me that marriage is the sole provision of women, heck, guys like to get married too!

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


How many times have you heard a man ask their friends about the girls they're dating: "what car does she have? what position does she work in? does she live in her own property?"
How often have you heard a woman ask their friends these same questions about the men they're dating?

Both rather equally. You'd be surprised at the similarities between the sexes when they both share a common cultural and economical background. We tend to like the same things. Ok one big difference, guys talk about t&a a lot and girls tend to notice the rocket in your pocket.
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


Of course you can find exceptions to the rule, but in general, most women prefer to (consciously or unconsciously) pair up with someone who earns more than they do. Personally I don't mind having a wife or girlfriend earning more than I do, but many women do seem to find men earning less than them considerably less attractive.


Most women tend to pair up with the dude they fall in love with, get knocked up by or if they really are smart, have a job!!!!!!!

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


Cultural differences do have a factor, but it isn't everything. Put it this way, 40 years ago almost all doctors and engineers were men, today, why have more women chosen medicine and less have chosen engineering? Don't think it's because that in engineering there's more gender discrimination, it's just that the medical profession attracts more women by aptitude.


Perhaps, never did survey why women like easy bake ovens more than hot wheels. So you may have a point there (actually you do, I'm just toying with you. It's a fun day). Aptitude spreads across many boundaries, interests, and skill sets. I do believe women are very good with math once they apply themselves. Same as any ole guy.

So who are store managers these days, mostly men or women? Now go drive around town to the nearest mall and see for yourself. Surprised?

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


In fact, some of the professions with the least amount of gender-based discrimination are rather male-dominated, such as Information Technology. Among software development and other high-tech professions, promotion tends to be awarded more by merit, and the gender-gap between salaries is almost non-existent. Despite this level of equality, the percentage of women working in technological professions is considerably lower than men because fewer of them are interested, and I don't see any problem with that.
Neither do I. Women have good taste. You tend to see less of them as greasy auto mechanics too.
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


On the other hand, other professions that have a very high female participation, such as sales and even in fashion, there IS a very high level of gender-biassed discrimination....

You may be onto something here, I'd just like to know what it is. Care to explain?
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:


I am not against feminism in general, but what I believe in is the equality of opportunities, not the equality of outcome.

don't know what equality of outcome means but if you don't like it then please keep it away from me too!Shocked  If it means a sort of affirmative action for those with large breasts then we don't need a quota for that. Nope, bring 'em all in (had to say that). Actually that is where I would draw the line. Yup, no forced outcome model with me neither.



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 14:33
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 


Okay, i give up. Is it Joe Biden....? Dick Cheney...? Or Lady Gaga....

or their combined love-child?


-------------
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow">
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow - adult photo sharing


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 15:04
The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.

-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 16:07

^

Then Pakistan must be the most gender equal country in the world.


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 16:33
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 


Okay, i give up. Is it Joe Biden....? Dick Cheney...? Or Lady Gaga....

or their combined love-child?


Prince Poppycock




Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 17:19
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 17:28
Irish.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 17:32
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?
 
Effeminate men I can understand but effeminate womenConfusedConfusedConfused.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 17:57
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Equal Rights for women has had a more beneficial effect than those mentioned above: 1) fewer women (percentage wise) are outliving their spouses; 2) female fertility rates have plummeted.Evil Smile Now, if we could only train them for front-line fighting and actually carry it out...we would resolve the unemployment problem.Ermm 


Those were good jokes. Maybe fertility problems have more to do with pollutions and exposure to chemicals?


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 18:01
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

OK folks, I am about to initiate a new rights movement: Let's hear it for Manism and the freedom to plunder and pillage in a pique of machismo. And while we are at it, do not forget to round up all the virgins! We've been repressed and forced to suppress our more manly characteristics for far to long!
 

Just take a look at what these feminists have done to us:

 



Dr. Gonzaga! Is this what feminism did to you?


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 18:19
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?
 
Effeminate men I can understand but effeminate womenConfusedConfusedConfused.
 
Al-Jassas


I'm not too fond of vain airheads obsessing over the latest talent show nonsense on TV.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 18:33
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?


gAY! Big time too


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 19:06
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?


gAY! Big time too


LOL

Misogynist, actually Wink


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 22:10
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

The extent of gender equality in a society is really best measured by popular attitudes towards effeminate men and masculine women.


I hate effeminate men and effeminate women. What does that make me?


gAY! Big time too


LOL

Misogynist, actually Wink


Lesbian Tongue


Posted By: Goban
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 01:41

Let my ask this question to you all.. Is sex and gender the same thing? Also, how much of it is culturally derived vs biological in nature?



Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 08:23
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Then Pakistan must be the most gender equal country in the world.
 
Can this be construed as anything other than a huge insult against Pakistani men and an even bigger one against the women? Tongue
 
There are a few Pakis around here and I can't say I've noticed the women being particularly masculine, though the men have this weird idea that shopping perfume together or hanging out at a hair salon isn't gay.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 10:46
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

 
There are a few Pakis around here and I can't say I've noticed the women being particularly masculine, though the men have this weird idea that shopping perfume together or hanging out at a hair salon isn't gay.
 
Obviously you have never been to a muslim country before. Men here spend more money on perfumes than women.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 11:51
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

 
There are a few Pakis around here and I can't say I've noticed the women being particularly masculine, though the men have this weird idea that shopping perfume together or hanging out at a hair salon isn't gay.
 
Obviously you have never been to a muslim country before. Men here spend more money on perfumes than women.
 
Al-Jassas


And nobody thinks thats really gay? It is pretty gay.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 12:16
Seriously, what is gay about smelling nice? Next you will be telling me that you aren't a real man if you don't eat your meat raw using nothing but your hands and a flint carving knife.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 12:50
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Seriously, what is gay about smelling nice? Next you will be telling me that you aren't a real man if you don't eat your meat raw using nothing but your hands and a flint carving knife.
 
Said the gay man? You're just proving my point. Cool
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Obviously you have never been to a muslim country before. Men here spend more money on perfumes than women.
 
You equate being Muslim with shopping perfume? I really do think this is one of those cultural things.
 
I've been to Turkey, which is at least a majority Muslim country. The men there were more busy trying to sell me melons, though not the kind I prefer.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 13:03
Originally posted by Regi Regi wrote:

Today most peoples creativity is locked up in mind numbing labor and mind numbing consumism.


Well that's pretty ballsy coming from a fence sitter Star


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 13:06
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by Regi Regi wrote:

Today most peoples creativity is locked up in mind numbing labor and mind numbing consumism.


Well that's pretty ballsy coming from a fence sitter Star
 
That's Carch, not me. Geez.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 13:40
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Seriously, what is gay about smelling nice? Next you will be telling me that you aren't a real man if you don't eat your meat raw using nothing but your hands and a flint carving knife.
 
Said the gay man? You're just proving my point. Cool 
 
 
Here is a little movie about how manly or not manyly things are.
 
The man in the movie is the Worlds strongest man, Magnus Samuelsson, and he is definitely not gay. He says: Everyone who think it is unmanly to dance in TV or take care of your outer appearance can visit me and then we can talk about the matter:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkGW4h1Jypk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkGW4h1Jypk
 
 
Not gay
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 13:54
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by Regi Regi wrote:

Today most peoples creativity is locked up in mind numbing labor and mind numbing consumism.


Well that's pretty ballsy coming from a fence sitter Star
 
That's Carch, not me. Geez.


I am certain I can recall multiple occasions where you said you went both ways, Regi.

I can't speak for Carch.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 14:13
Back on topic, I consider that feminism has acheived a lot. The argument that employees should be compensated equally for equal productivity is totally valid, and to think otherwise is backwards and poor management.

Allowing women to get a divorce when they are in an abusive relationship is also a very good thing. Not only that, once upon a time when a women wanted to get a divorce she had to go through the humiliating procedure of sitting in a courtroom full of people who were usually her social betters and explaining one of her husband's affairs after another to satisfy the court that a divorce was necessary. It was an enormously difficult thing to do, and I am pleased that this way of terminating terrible relationships is at an end.

Equal opportunity employment is a very good thing. Employment, promotion, remuneration and the like should be awarded purely on the basis of one's merit, qualifications and vocational skills. Discriminate by all means if you think an employee performs poorly, but don't discriminate on the basis of their gender. And this goes both ways. Don't give someone less qualified a job on the basis of their gender. AND NO QUOTAS!

I dismiss the idea that feminists are responsible for so many women engaging in work at the cost of maternal duties. This in my mind is a result of an increasingly materialistic society with a more uneven distribution of wealth and less purchasing power for ordinary people when it comes to buying everyday items like food, transport and accommodation.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 14:30
Constantine XI, what I mean is the quote you used was written by Carch not me. As for me, I'm not on any fence or in any closet, I just go for whomever I find attractive without any interest in complicating matters with categorization. Sometimes you want hamburgers for dinner and other times pasta, yet few would contemplate what choosing one or the other says about their identity; "am I a hamburgerphile or a pastaphile?" It isn't relevant; do what you want, end of thought process. I can see why a scientist like a sociologist would need theoretical categories for methodological purposes, but for everyone else thinking about such issues is a waste of time.
 
Carch, the fact you show a gym-addict with a homobeard and a dainty wine glass as an example of rugged masculinity, tells me you're somewhat inexperienced with the gay community. They're not all queens.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 14:41
Quote what I mean is the quote you used was written by Carch not me. As for me, I'm not on any fence or in any closet, I just go for whomever I find attractive without any interest in complicating matters with categorization. Sometimes you want hamburgers for dinner and other times pasta, yet few would contemplate what choosing one or the other says about their identity; "am I a hamburgerphile or a pastaphile?" It isn't relevant; do what you want, end of thought process. I can see why a scientist like a sociologist would need theoretical categories for methodological purposes, but for everyone else thinking about such issues is a waste of time.


Yep, and never eating meat but not considering calling yourself a vegetarian still means you are effectively a vegetarian.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 14:49
Yes, technically speaking you can't deny that, but for most people the -philes are only "useful" as vehicles of discrimination and stigmatization, which is why I would rather they not think about it at all.

-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 15:15
Er have we not strayed tremendously far from topic here...besides sex is a biological term and gender falls in the domain of sociology. There is no such concept as sexual equality (its an apples and oranges kind of thing) but gender equality is something else because we are defining within the societal ambit with regard to structural relationships.
 
e.g. The difference between tranniesEvil Smile!
 
So let us forego the various versions of newspeak and please let us stop embarrassing ourselves by pushing forth clear examples of little more than narcissism. Of course, given that the topic itself uses newspeak ['feminism" egads and Oscar Wilde--yes the word is definitely Edwardian] when in fact we should be discussing the ramifications of the socio-political within the context of the legal structure such an outcome was inevitable. Keep in mind that Man is inclusive within Sociology, while man and woman are exclusives solely within a biological sense. All else leads to little more than hoists on ones' own petards.
 
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/week-15-prince-poppycock/17wc9b5ts?q=prince%20poppycock&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR9 - http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/week-15-prince-poppycock/17wc9b5ts?q=prince%20poppycock&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR9


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 16:22
Three cheers for Poppycock. Hip Hip Hooray!






Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 17:34
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Obviously you have never been to a muslim country before. Men here spend more money on perfumes than women.
 
You equate being Muslim with shopping perfume? I really do think this is one of those cultural things.
 
I've been to Turkey, which is at least a majority Muslim country. The men there were more busy trying to sell me melons, though not the kind I prefer.
 
In the old days in the Arab world at least this was true. As for Turkey probably the reason why they don't use perfume as much as us is that they had lots of Hammams, running water inside their homes and a cool climate.
 
Here in Riyadh we have 40+ temperatures 100 days of the year, water was so scarce people used or swim in the same wells they drink and irrigate from (which is why Schistosomiasis was the number 1 killer ) and we were close to India where all the perfumes came from.
 
Al-Jassas 


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 12 Sep 2010 at 14:15
In the "old days"???? Hey, Al long before anyone even coined the term "metrosexual", men used koln wasser. Heck, I used Guerlain's Eau Imperiale (a trait derived from my grandfather) that came in a nice crystal decanter decorated with the Napoleonic bee! I only adopted Chanel's Pour l'homme as a teen solely as a defensive mechanism in the gym locker where everyone else had a craze for the truly revolting fragrance merchandized by Dana, Canoe (for years thereafter French vanilla ice cream made my stomach turn!). Everyone knows that the minute you descend into the Paris Metro you had best have a well-soaked fragrant 'kerchief to place before your nose, if you wish to survive the experience.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12 Sep 2010 at 18:35
I was referring to the medieval up to the renaissaince times when people took pride in not having bathed for so and so months which is why perfumes came into being in the first place.
 
Al-Jassas
 


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 04:57
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

The man in the movie is the Worlds strongest man, Magnus Samuelsson, and he is definitely not gay. He says: Everyone who think it is unmanly to dance in TV or take care of your outer appearance can visit me and then we can talk about the matter:

He's gay. Or close enough that I can't tell the difference (and I'd happily tell him to his face, his muscles don't scare me)
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Obviously you have never been to a muslim country before. Men here spend more money on perfumes than women.

That's a very Arab thing.
It also makes for great culture clash, an Arab Imam sounds positivily metrosexual when talking about perfume to an Australian audience.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 08:34
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I was referring to the medieval up to the renaissaince times when people took pride in not having bathed for so and so months which is why perfumes came into being in the first place.
 
Sweat and perfume makes for a horrible mix. I know a few people who (God knows why) try to obscure their poor shower routines with perfume and being close to them is an endurance test.
 
My experience is that peninsular Arabs (at least the ones I know) have abandoned this practice in favour of scathingly hot baths and shaving bodyhair in the most sweat-exposed places. Particularly when it comes to rectal hygiene it might even be said they are cleaner than most others.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 08:39
Gay= a homosexual attraction between two males.

Some people here have a tendency to confuse camp/effeminate with gay - taking a highly subjective judgement and applying it to a highly objective state of affairs.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 08:39
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I was referring to the medieval up to the renaissaince times when people took pride in not having bathed for so and so months which is why perfumes came into being in the first place.
 
Sweat and perfume makes for a horrible mix. I know a few people who (God knows why) try to obscure their poor shower routines with perfume and being close to them is an endurance test.
 
My experience is that peninsular Arabs (at least the ones I know) have abandoned this practice in favour of scathingly hot baths and shaving bodyhair in the most sweat-exposed places. Particularly when it comes to rectal hygiene it might even be said they are cleaner than most others.
How did you know thatEvil Smile.
 
Al-Jassas
 


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2010 at 08:57

I have a long-standing friend who is an Emirati from the UAE (and a lurker on this forum) and over the years all sorts of topic for conversation have come up. Of course the Gulf states are quite a different story from Saudi Arabia, but I imagined they might have these everyday aspects of popular culture in common.



-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net