Page 5 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 626
Like Tree315Likes

Thread: Feminism thread

  1. #61
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    12,548
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    But in a perfect society...things would still be more or less the same. Traditional family structures will still be commonplace. Male dominated industries will continue to remain so. That's because, I believe, that a lot of us choose willingly to end up in these roles. Give the world perfect freedom and I expect most of us will just choose to be where we are now. Lots of women love being moms and hate being engineers. Lots of men love working and hate raising kids. They're not going to change that just because it's easier for them too.

    I feel a lot of arguments on feminism fail to account for all this. We aren't going to re-wire the human brain. We aren't going to eradicate the genetic differences in place. We can create a world that is equally accepting of men and women in all of walks of life, but that doesn't mean we are going to have a 50/50 split in everything.

    All this talk of lack of women CEOs or stay at home dads...idk, I feel it's nonsense. Lets talk about removing the barriers in place for women in society, definitely. Lets talk about removing these pre-conceptions written into our culture. Lets stop defining gender roles. But lets not expect things to actually change significantly as a result. We've reached where we are as a society, as a species, for a reason. It's coded into our DNA. It's pointless to fight that.
    Yeah I really don't agree with a lot of this and the bolded part most of all. While you might be right that to an extent our society evolved because of the fundamental differences between genders (in particular men's greater physical strength which for almost all of human history has put them in a position of power over women), I think you're trivialising the extent to which our society and culture influences our choices and decision-making. If you kept our basic biology the same but raised boys and girls in a culture where all of those cultural images were perfectly inverted (e.g. boys bedrooms are painted pink rather than blue, they receive plenty of reinforcement that they're the care-providers who look after babies and are fed a stream of images about how scientists, doctors and engineers are mainly women etc.) then I suspect you would get a pretty inverted world as a result.
    hendrix, Flem274* and Daemon like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed View Post
    I can think of a list of Sydney Grade posters who would contribute a better average post than Bahnz.
    Maow like no one can hear you maowing.

  2. #62
    International Coach zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    14,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    I think you're trivialising the extent to which our society and culture influences our choices and decision-making. If you kept our basic biology the same but raised boys and girls in a culture where all of those cultural images were perfectly inverted (e.g. boys bedrooms are painted pink rather than blue, they receive plenty of reinforcement that they're the care-providers who look after babies and are fed a stream of images about how scientists, doctors and engineers are mainly women etc.) then I suspect you would get a pretty inverted world as a result.
    I've considered this. But it doesn't explain how all societies and cultures in the world got to this way to begin with. Why were the first scientists, doctors and engineers men? How did it become the norm for women to stay at home and raise the kids? There must be some reason why this is one of the very, very few things most cultures have in common.

    We weren't taught stereotypical gender roles to begin with. I just find it strange to treat it as an alien concept we need to get rid of.

  3. #63
    International Coach Bahnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Wigton Unzud
    Posts
    12,548
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    I've considered this. But it doesn't explain how all societies and cultures in the world got to this way to begin with. Why were the first scientists, doctors and engineers men? How did it become the norm for women to stay at home and raise the kids? There must be some reason why this is one of the very, very few things most cultures have in common.

    We weren't taught stereotypical gender roles to begin with. I just find it strange to treat it as an alien concept we need to get rid of.
    Just because all cultures have certain things in common doesn't mean those traits represent imutable aspects of our biology. Prior to very recently in our history, we were all living in poly-amorous communes were everyone had *** with everyone and consequently everyone took care of the kids.
    hendrix and Flem274* like this.

  4. #64
    Cricketer Of The Year ankitj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    8,670
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    I do find the concept of "lack of representation" of women in certain posts a rather pointless topic though. The aim should always be to provide equal opportunity, not equal representation. It's similar to the quota system, which is a whole other debate, but I find it annoying when people make a big deal out of it when women ascend to positions of power , or are elected into high posts in society. I feel its counter-intuitive for the feminist movement as it ends up implying that she only got to that post because women required representation, and not because she deserved it on merit anyway.
    See how corporates are struggling to fill the mandated one woman position on company boards. They are roping in wives of existing board members to comply!
    RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*


  5. #65
    International Coach zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    14,558
    Quote Originally Posted by Bahnz View Post
    Just because all cultures have certain things in common doesn't mean those traits represent imutable aspects of our biology. Prior to very recently in our history, we were all living in poly-amorous communes were everyone had *** with everyone and consequently everyone took care of the kids.
    I have interesting view points on that that I feel you won't agree with either - basically that that seems more natural, and seems to lead to a happier community and a healthier environment to raise a child in. There might be a connection between our shift to smaller, nuclear families and the increase in failed marriages, single-parent families and unhappier people now.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    7,710
    The problem is not with individual instances where it might feel like quota, it's a general societal problem that roles traditionally associated with power are male-dominated despite women being more fairy represented in lower-rung employment. I don't agree with laws interfering in the process but I think it's an amazing thing that the status quo is changing slowly.
    Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams



    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one

    It's because Teja is a ****, FTR

  7. #67
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    52,465
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    We can create a world that is equally accepting of men and women in all of walks of life, but that doesn't mean we are going to have a 50/50 split in everything.
    This is where I diverge from the modern wave of mainstream feminism a bit, but I don't think this idea and feminism are mutually exclusive. I don't think feminism has to be about dictating statistically equal outcomes.

    I definitely think it's likely that if you removed all the unmeritocratic barriers, social pressures and cultural expectations, you'd still end up with different splits in different professions, you'd still have a prevalence of traditional family structures and I think you'd probably even still have a "pay gap", just because men and women are biologically and neurologically different. It might have something to do with my more opportunity-based outlook on equality in general, but I think that'd be perfectly fine.

    However, I don't think we actually are at a point where we've removed all the unmeritocratic barriers, social pressures and cultural expectations yet. I firmly believe that the fact there are more male CEOs than female CEOs, for example, is partly down to biological and neurological differences and partly down to those factors I mentioned above. Working to remove those factors so that any remaining splits are entirely down to genetic factors and individuals have the greatest opportunity to determine their own preferences and goals regardless of their gender certainly seems like a worthy goal to me.
    zorax likes this.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    All systems of government are therefore totalitarian dictatorships in disguise

  8. #68
    International Coach zorax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    14,558
    Yea I agree with PEWS. I agree with the changing of mindsets, just think that measuring a society's level of equality by the number of women CEOs or women in STEM fields is completely misguided.

  9. #69
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    23,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    This is where I diverge from the modern wave of mainstream feminism a bit, but I don't think this idea and feminism are mutually exclusive. I don't think feminism has to be about dictating statistically equal outcomes.

    I definitely think it's likely that if you removed all the unmeritocratic barriers, social pressures and cultural expectations, you'd still end up with different splits in different professions, you'd still have a prevalence of traditional family structures and I think you'd probably even still have a "pay gap", just because men and women are biologically and neurologically different. It might have something to do with my more opportunity-based outlook on equality in general, but I think that'd be perfectly fine.

    However, I don't think we actually are at a point where we've removed all the unmeritocratic barriers, social pressures and cultural expectations yet. I firmly believe that the fact there are more male CEOs than female CEOs, for example, is partly down to biological and neurological differences and partly down to those factors I mentioned above. Working to remove those factors so that any remaining splits are entirely down to genetic factors and individuals have the greatest opportunity to determine their own preferences and goals regardless of their gender certainly seems like a worthy goal to me.
    You mean because women have babies so you can't count on them long term and they're irrational so you can't take them seriously or expect them to make important decisions?
    President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
    Go Tigers!
    R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

  10. #70
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    52,465
    Quote Originally Posted by NZTailender View Post
    You mean because women have babies so you can't count on them long term and they're irrational so you can't take them seriously or expect them to make important decisions?
    No.

    I don't think those biological and neurological factors at play would actually make women worse at that sort of job than men, but I do think men would be more likely to pursue that line of work in the first place even if we removed social barriers and expectations, and I think that's fine. What's not fine is that the barriers and expectations are still actually there.
    Last edited by Prince EWS; 27-07-2015 at 02:50 AM.
    zorax likes this.

  11. #71
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    13,068
    Equality and homogenisation are two entirely different things.

    Feminism is not about women becoming​ men.
    Prince EWS, sledger, zorax and 4 others like this.
    Mind the Windows, Tino!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Honestly if Dan isn't the greatest living creature on Earth, he is only second behind Luggage.

  12. #72
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    13,725
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    Eh I have a view on this that might be pretty dire.

    We are where we are as a society for a reason.

    I don't think patriarchy and inequality between sexes was imposed onto us by some foreign being. It's a concept that evolved from humans and put into place by humans into their own society.

    The earliest tribes and societies had no grasp of the concept of sexism. It's just that, genetically, men would fight and hunt and seek power and look to impregnate lots of women and the women would be draw towards nurturing and caring and building a community.

    Add hundreds of thousands of years onto this and we end up where we are at now.

    We haven't changed biologically, but we realise that its wrong to impose expectation and limitations on other people, limiting their freedom in the process. Women should obviously be free to do what they like. So should men. We shouldn't have to follow cultural roles.

    But in a perfect society...things would still be more or less the same. Traditional family structures will still be commonplace. Male dominated industries will continue to remain so. That's because, I believe, that a lot of us choose willingly to end up in these roles. Give the world perfect freedom and I expect most of us will just choose to be where we are now. Lots of women love being moms and hate being engineers. Lots of men love working and hate raising kids. They're not going to change that just because it's easier for them too.

    I feel a lot of arguments on feminism fail to account for all this. We aren't going to re-wire the human brain. We aren't going to eradicate the genetic differences in place. We can create a world that is equally accepting of men and women in all of walks of life, but that doesn't mean we are going to have a 50/50 split in everything.

    All this talk of lack of women CEOs or stay at home dads...idk, I feel it's nonsense. Lets talk about removing the barriers in place for women in society, definitely. Lets talk about removing these pre-conceptions written into our culture. Lets stop defining gender roles. But lets not expect things to actually change significantly as a result. We've reached where we are as a society, as a species, for a reason. It's coded into our DNA. It's pointless to fight that.

    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    I've considered this. But it doesn't explain how all societies and cultures in the world got to this way to begin with. Why were the first scientists, doctors and engineers men? How did it become the norm for women to stay at home and raise the kids?

    THEY WEREN'T. AND IT WASN'T.
    There is no physiological, behavioural or biological argument for any inherent roles in *** other than breastfeeding and depositing sperm inside a womb. It's really that simple. But beyond the argument of traditional roles, what's even more intolerable is subjugation and lack of equality. Which, again, has no basis in biology and is purely a product of culture.

    And that culture of subjugation hasn't been around for long. It certainly doesn't exist in any other species and, as far as we're aware, has only really been around for a couple of thousand years. Go figure.
    Last edited by hendrix; 27-07-2015 at 03:23 AM.

  13. #73
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    13,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    However, I don't think we actually are at a point where we've removed all the unmeritocratic barriers, social pressures and cultural expectations yet. I firmly believe that the fact there are more male CEOs than female CEOs, for example, is partly down to biological and neurological differences and partly down to those factors I mentioned above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    No.

    I don't think those biological and neurological factors at play would actually make women worse at that sort of job than men, but I do think men would be more likely to pursue that line of work in the first place even if we removed social barriers and expectations, and I think that's fine. What's not fine is that the barriers and expectations are still actually there.
    Look I'm not averse to the idea that this is true, and it probably is indeed partly true, but I will say that almost all of the biological and psychological reasoning that people apply here is complete rubbish.
    Like, inherently flawed arguments. Circular reasoning and just bull**** stats.

    And I'm sure you're aware that 99.9% of the people who cite these ideas are indeed bigots...
    Howe_zat and Prince EWS like this.

  14. #74
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Elm, he do brood. And Oak, he do hate. But the Willow-man goes walking, If you stays out late.
    Posts
    41,005
    Haha, just remembered an occasion from a couple of years ago now when I had to teach a class on judicial diversity. One bloke from Russia piped up and started going on about how there shouldn't be any female judges because their "brains were too small" to handle the intricacies of the legal process etc...

    Thought it was a troll at first, but upon further questioning it became evident he genuinely held these views. Rest of the class totally erupted and piled into him of course; I had to shut everyone up and give a lecture about why saying things like that were not acceptable.

    The whole incident was surprising and concerning tstl. I remember walking home shortly after and thinking to myself "surely that didn't just happen".
    harsh.ag likes this.

  15. #75
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    45,744
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    I do find the concept of "lack of representation" of women in certain posts a rather pointless topic though. The aim should always be to provide equal opportunity, not equal representation. It's similar to the quota system, which is a whole other debate, but I find it annoying when people make a big deal out of it when women ascend to positions of power , or are elected into high posts in society. I feel its counter-intuitive for the feminist movement as it ends up implying that she only got to that post because women required representation, and not because she deserved it on merit anyway.
    1. The problem is that there is no real convincing argument that unequal representation is meritocratic in any sensible sense. Take STEM - mathematics in particular - as an example. There's a lot of evidence, particularly modern evidence, that there is no significant difference between men and women when it comes to mathematical aptitude when they grow up in the same environment with respect to teaching, support, encouragement etc. Yet men outnumber women by an enormous margin - something like 4:1 or 3:1 - at research level in these fields. If you're saying this is meritocratic then you are essentially saying that men are 3x, 4x better at maths/science than women, for reasons completely unrelated to their actual innate aptitude for maths and science - because we know that, all other things being equal, this should make no difference?

    So what are these reasons?

    (I mean, when you look at the research being done, it is pretty obviously what people call institutional sexism, i.e. less women go into STEM fields because of constant and subtle discouragement)

    2. The reason it's significant that women obtain positions of power is because it's difficult, and because pure "merit" is not the only and generally not the most important factor to that outcome. Perhaps one day it won't be a big deal, but for the time being the deck is sufficiently stacked that it is.

    --

    WRT traditional gender roles. It's right that they evolved for firm, substantive reasons which have to do with a stable structure and, in past times, made a certain amount of economic sense. But given that women no longer need to have as many babies as they humanly can just to survive, that really no longer matters. "Well, maybe we just should" is not a good reason for systemic inequality and injustice.
    Last edited by Spark; 27-07-2015 at 03:32 AM.
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*

Page 5 of 42 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 22-04-2014, 07:03 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 30-04-2013, 03:49 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 19-05-2007, 06:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •