Discrimination Against Women (or: Why I am a Feminist)

Are YOU a feminist?

A what? :sweat:	2.1%	[ 54 ]
ABSOLUTELY.	39.3%	[ 1035 ]
Maybe?	14.0%	[ 370 ]
Nah.	20.4%	[ 537 ]
NO & U R A FEMINAZI LULZ	11.4%	[ 299 ]
Whatevs. Just gold pl0x.	12.9%	[ 339 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2634 ]

[Meroko_Love]

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Complex Systems

I fail to see how restricting free speech makes society better.

So you don't believe in libel law?

Quote:

li·bel   [lahy-buhl] verb, -beled, -bel·ing or ( especially British ) -belled, -bel·ling. noun
1. Law .
a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b. the act or crime of publishing it.
c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

source

I think it's one thing for me to stand on a street corner shouting racist things, and another for someone to publish malicious statements in a newspaper.

The street corner is covered by public order and harassment laws. But my point was that libel laws are anti free speech.

They are to some level, but I feel like this discussion is like "well, because you aren't taking the most extreme view possible, you aren't for it at all!"

For the most part I believe that there should be as few restrictions on free speech as possible, including limited public order, harassment, and libel laws.

Well, see, then you believe in limiting free speech as well. My point was that many Americans tend to be absolutist in protecting free speech to ridiculous extents. It tends to be more of the right-wingers, however.

[Meroko_Love]

A Really Bad Idea

Meroko_Love

Yeah, math and hard sciences are still very much male-dominated areas, and many girls and women are led to believe that boys are just "naturally" better in them.

To be fair; it's hard to disagree if the system ends up rigged to suggest such. My previous post indicated some trneds on coursework vs exams. I may be wrong but don't maths and science tend to be more exam than coursework oriented?

Meroko_Love

I don't think it would be. The reason why many people, mainly females, have issues with females in video games is that they seem to be there mainly for eye candy; the token sex object.
I never see video games with buff brute females as protagonists, even though their male counterparts are like that. (In American games)

But the vast majority of game developers are white men, so video games by default are imbued with the male gaze anyway. neutral

I'm mostly operating by an assumption that it would be a very clunkily handled means of demonstrating independance. In the same respect that male characterisation in shooter games seems to increasingly offer a gruff beachball-man- hybrid. But that's just one cynical opinion.

And yes, the tendancy will be towards a more male-idealism in an industry male dominated. It's somewhat symptomatic as opposed to an endemic in and of itself.

I just mean that in our culture, math and hard science is viewed as masculine subjects, and mostly men take them up; there is certainly a plethora of literature that suggests it has a huge impact on girls and women going into these fields.

Unfortunately, the video game consumers still mainly tend to be boys and men, and there have been a lot of complaints about the "feminine" JRPG male characters, so I have no idea why, but the majority of the male audience seems to like these big, brute, hyper-masculine portrayals of men in video games. neutral

[Robot Macai]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Robot Macai

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Robot Macai

Well, yes, I can, because the position you occupy is part of how the world works. If I can lift more than Joe using a given muscle group, I have more strength than he, i.e., my strength is, indeed, superior. Saying that because my muscles may atrophy that it is "structural" and not "inherent" is denying what is in favor of what could be.

While women may be attempting to shirk their traditionally subordinate social role, they are ultimately failing, as indicated by the fact that even feminists seem to think that we seem to live in a "patriarchy" where men still run every last detail of our society from the bottom up. You can't have your cake and eat it, too; either women are equal, and thus things like feminism are now wholly unnecessary, or they're not, and remain inferior.

Except you don't know why the world works in the way it does, and you're assuming the product is a result of organic rather than culturally mechanical processes.

We make that assumption for basically every other animal. Given the level of sexual dimorphism in other animals, and, hell, even in humans, it's, in your words, "******** absurd" to think that this somehow does not strongly influence how men and women think and behave.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

You and Joe should be using machines to lift objects, and then it would be an apt comparison. You having a bigger crane than Joe means your crane is stronger; not that your crane has anything to do with you inherently, as you didn't build it by your own means, and the only reason you obtained it was because other people assisted you in getting it more than they did Joe. Then in the future Joe will have the crane; does that mean anything apart from control of a mechanical system?

It is no denial of what is; it's a denial of biologically essentialising how what is came to be.

I did specify that we used the same muscle group. That said, it's a baseless denial, considering the near universality of male dominance in human history. It's not like male dominance is an anomaly, or even no more common than female dominance.

Cultures vary greatly worldwide, with customs, ideals, morals, etc being very different. To suggest that one of the few universally (with only a handful of frankly unnoteworthy exceptions) recurring themes in these cultures just happened to come about, as if by coincidence, is what's ******** absurd. The near-universality of these supposedly "cultural" themes is simply inconsistent with the "well, cultures just made up these generalized sex roles" hypothesis. It is, however, consistent, with the theory that sexual dimorphism in humans extends to behavior and social roles.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

The continued existence of patriarchy is not evidence of failure any more than the continued presence of an army means someone is failing to win a war. Transitory processes are slow; changing the social scope of things needs time. Men aren't claimed to run everything, only to still be dominant within social institutions. That doesn't mean things are not changing.

Feminism doesn't deny that women have a structurally inferior position. They deny that the position is warranted.

Shitty analogy. Armies aren't supposed to disband at the end of a war. Patriarchy is supposed to end at the end of male dominance.

Because other animals aren't humans. We are directly influenced by culture, even our biology, hence why we discount the influence of social processes at our peril.

Yes, humans are so wholly different from other animals that the same rules and standards of evidence just plain don't apply to us. Seriously, this view is ******** retarded.

I also already mentioned sexual dimorphism in regards to the division of labour by sex. I have already stated that beyond hunter-gatherer arrangements (or other subsistence economies) there is no reason to relate this dimorphism to hierarchy of ability.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Except the strength of men in society today is not based upon anything relating to "muscle groups", nor are you making use of the same social entities.

It's based on a lot of things, not the least of which being aggression, which, surprise, is a trait almost universally associated with masculinity.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Petitio principii assumption that male dominance of society = male superiority in biology. You assume the product of superiority must be caused by superiority; that the reproduction of any entity must be the result of primordial accumulation. It explains nothing because it presupposes male dominance.

It doesn't presuppose male dominance, it uses consistent male social dominance as evidence for male biological evidence. There's a difference. A big one. "X = Y" =/= "X is evidence of Y."

Try again.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

I didn't argue that they came about by coincidence. I stated that the male role of wealth accumulator in subsistence economies permits them to dominate culturally due to their ability to grant or withhold resources. There is also very little evidence that what sexual dimorphism does exist within the human species can explain the level of social stratification that we witness. Also, near-universality is not universality. The fact that there are deviations at all points out a cultural, not biological prevalence.

There are multiple glaring problems with this.

1) Absolute universality is an unreasonable standard, as it suggests that in order for biology to play an important role in behavior (or, more specifically sexually dimorphic behavior), all members of that species and same sex must therefore be biologically driven to do the same thing. That is, there is no variation in biologically-driven behaviors between specimens of a species-sex combination. We know that this is not true, as width-height ratio of a man's head correlates with not just aggression but deceptiveness. Does culture make men with wide heads dishonest? Does it make dishonest men have wide heads? Both explanations are ludicrous. Clearly, there's a biological cause for this behavior, not a cultural one. Also, note how this doesn't affect women. Huh. Imagine that.

2) This logic of "absolute universality or else it doesn't count" could be used to suggest that all gender roles are biological. You see, Guardian, if our behaviors are really dictated by culture, then why doesn't everyone conform to the gender roles of that culture? [sarcasm]Clearly, "the fact that there are deviations at all points out a" biological (which varies by specimen), not cultural prevalence. Checkmate![/sarcasm]

Sorry, but near-universality is just going to have to do, or your own theory is going to have to go.

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

The Living Force

Shirabelle

The Living Force

Shirabelle

How would you propose we make men and women exactly and without absolute question, equal?
Without asking everyone collectively to change their way of thinking (without mass outside influence.) Or putting everyone in gray suits that hide a persons figure, forcing everyone to do the same jobs, make the same amount of money, go to the same doctors, have the same outlooks and attitudes, drive the same cars, walk the same way. Etc. In order for everyone to be equal, we would need to be exactly the same. Since that is not possible, and men and women are different, they will be treated differently from one another. I do believe that men face the same amount of in-equality and gender discrimination. While I don't think women deserve to be raped or humiliated or talked-down to, and nor should men, you will always have people who take advantage of the weak, no matter the gender, and sorry to say, but women are generally weaker compared to men.

--
If it pleases you.

Men and women having different biology does not in any way obligate different treatment of either. Equal treatment does not require absolute physical equality.

Men do face discrimination in certain instances, but to say that they receive the same amount is absolutely absurd.

And no, you will not "always have people who take advantage of the weak," at least not in substantial numbers. Social norms are shaped, not set in stone, and as such, frequency of crime can be affected by changing societal values. Which is to say that the high crime rate in the US is causally related to our caustic culture.

I highly doubt it's because of our 'caustic culture' when ours is a lot less extreme than many. You will never have complete equality between sexes. The differences are there for a reason and most of our perception and judgment of things are based around differences. It's human nature.

--
If it pleases you.

No, you're right, behaviors are all intrinsic.

Except not. Social behavior is not human nature. Human nature is very seldom mentioned in its actual capacity.

And yes, our culture is caustic. It being less bad than others doesn't make it any less bad. We allow for rampant sexism and then defend it with trite responses about human nature, or women being inferior. We're a developed nation with a population who still believes men to be superior to women. We blame rape victims for their rape. Our culture is incredibly hostile towards women and until that changes, we will be hard pressed to make strides towards social equality, which is a feasible goal. Will women and men become androgynous, hermaphroditic entities? No. Does that matter? Also no. Social equality is attainable and to say otherwise is either pessimistic (which you are not being) or naive (which you are being).

PS: Most of our perception and judgment are based upon fear and hatred of differences, and xenophobia is not human nature any more than it is for girls to like dolls and boys to like cars. Which is to say not at all.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that women aren't inferior?

After all, per your own narrative, you believe that men have collectively managed to dominate women outright, worldwide, for millennia, perhaps millions of years. You call this "patriarchy". This sounds like a clear indication that men are superior, as if they were not, they would not be in such a position to dominate the opposite sex.

You are totally right, Luke. Patriarchy is natural, inevitable, human nature. Clearly, if patriarchy has survived for so long, brought about industrialization and modernization, it is clear that men are the superior sex.

You're learning, cutie-pie. In all seriousness, I don't think women are biologically inferior, but I do think they're biologically different, and this has ultimately resulted in their subjugation. Fortunately, I think modern developments are going to balance things out a lot more. Less fortunately, I also think they have already advantaged women in some regards.

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

So it would appear that Jezebel, a popular feminist blog, is anti-freedom of speech, as indicated by this post, where it seems to support the banning of a man for writing some silly erotica about his professors in a writing class, and for correcting the school's newspaper about legal open-carry of firearms in schools.

The reason I say it seems to be anti-freedom of speech is 1) the fact that it openly describes him as "creepy" and said that "for some reason" an advocacy group took up his case, and 2) almost all of the comments are some variation of, "Ewww gross" or "Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to be heard."

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to sexually harass someone, slander someone, commit a hate crime against someone, or libel someone. It also does not mean you can write about having sex with a kid and expect to not get socially crucified for it.

Considering the first is the only one that applies here, it's the only one that I'll respond to. Seriously, Kimi, how are any of these other things even related?

It's a personal journal. Granted, it's for a class, but if the assignment is "write whatever you want", then these teachers are just going to have to suck it up if they write s**t like "I want to ******** your brains out" or anything to that effect. Freedom of speech does grant you the right to say things like that, indeed, even about your teachers.

Saying otherwise suggests that these womyn have the right to not be offended. Do you think womyn have the right to not be offended, and that this right trumps freedom of speech?

EDIT: You should thank me, BTW. It's trolls like me that keep this thread going.

They are related in that they are limits on free speech. If you are against limits on free speech, Luke, I would assume you are against the illegality of libel and slander, no?

Actually, I am. lol

Meroko_Love

Writing what that student did is considered sexual harassment, especially since it is a student-professor relationship and could have potentially gotten her in trouble. In certain cases, yes, I do believe that people should have the freedom from being offended. Isn't that the very logic of hate crimes?

That is probably true, Luke. biggrin

Well, no, hate crime legislation is usually about making certain motives (namely, ones involving the hatred of a given group) aggravating circumstances to another crime (like murder, assault, rape, etc) or crimes unto themselves. What I think you're referring to is hate speech legislation, which, yes, is predicated on this idea that you shouldn't say things that offend people.

That said, I think hate speech legislation is pretty ******** stupid.

[Meroko_Love]

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

The Living Force

Shirabelle

I highly doubt it's because of our 'caustic culture' when ours is a lot less extreme than many. You will never have complete equality between sexes. The differences are there for a reason and most of our perception and judgment of things are based around differences. It's human nature.

--
If it pleases you.

No, you're right, behaviors are all intrinsic.

Except not. Social behavior is not human nature. Human nature is very seldom mentioned in its actual capacity.

And yes, our culture is caustic. It being less bad than others doesn't make it any less bad. We allow for rampant sexism and then defend it with trite responses about human nature, or women being inferior. We're a developed nation with a population who still believes men to be superior to women. We blame rape victims for their rape. Our culture is incredibly hostile towards women and until that changes, we will be hard pressed to make strides towards social equality, which is a feasible goal. Will women and men become androgynous, hermaphroditic entities? No. Does that matter? Also no. Social equality is attainable and to say otherwise is either pessimistic (which you are not being) or naive (which you are being).

PS: Most of our perception and judgment are based upon fear and hatred of differences, and xenophobia is not human nature any more than it is for girls to like dolls and boys to like cars. Which is to say not at all.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that women aren't inferior?

After all, per your own narrative, you believe that men have collectively managed to dominate women outright, worldwide, for millennia, perhaps millions of years. You call this "patriarchy". This sounds like a clear indication that men are superior, as if they were not, they would not be in such a position to dominate the opposite sex.

You are totally right, Luke. Patriarchy is natural, inevitable, human nature. Clearly, if patriarchy has survived for so long, brought about industrialization and modernization, it is clear that men are the superior sex.

You're learning, cutie-pie. In all seriousness, I don't think women are biologically inferior, but I do think they're biologically different, and this has ultimately resulted in their subjugation. Fortunately, I think modern developments are going to balance things out a lot more. Less fortunately, I also think they have already advantaged women in some regards.

I'm just curious; in what ways do you think modern developments have advantaged women at the expense of men?

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

A Really Bad Idea

Meroko_Love

Yeah, math and hard sciences are still very much male-dominated areas, and many girls and women are led to believe that boys are just "naturally" better in them.

To be fair; it's hard to disagree if the system ends up rigged to suggest such. My previous post indicated some trneds on coursework vs exams. I may be wrong but don't maths and science tend to be more exam than coursework oriented?

Meroko_Love

I don't think it would be. The reason why many people, mainly females, have issues with females in video games is that they seem to be there mainly for eye candy; the token sex object.
I never see video games with buff brute females as protagonists, even though their male counterparts are like that. (In American games)

But the vast majority of game developers are white men, so video games by default are imbued with the male gaze anyway. neutral

I'm mostly operating by an assumption that it would be a very clunkily handled means of demonstrating independance. In the same respect that male characterisation in shooter games seems to increasingly offer a gruff beachball-man- hybrid. But that's just one cynical opinion.

And yes, the tendancy will be towards a more male-idealism in an industry male dominated. It's somewhat symptomatic as opposed to an endemic in and of itself.

I just mean that in our culture, math and hard science is viewed as masculine subjects, and mostly men take them up; there is certainly a plethora of literature that suggests it has a huge impact on girls and women going into these fields.

Unfortunately, the video game consumers still mainly tend to be boys and men, and there have been a lot of complaints about the "feminine" JRPG male characters, so I have no idea why, but the majority of the male audience seems to like these big, brute, hyper-masculine portrayals of men in video games. neutral

Is it possible that the hard sciences and math are subjects that aren't just viewed as masculine, but objectively are masculine, in that men tend to be better at them?

[Meroko_Love]

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

So it would appear that Jezebel, a popular feminist blog, is anti-freedom of speech, as indicated by this post, where it seems to support the banning of a man for writing some silly erotica about his professors in a writing class, and for correcting the school's newspaper about legal open-carry of firearms in schools.

The reason I say it seems to be anti-freedom of speech is 1) the fact that it openly describes him as "creepy" and said that "for some reason" an advocacy group took up his case, and 2) almost all of the comments are some variation of, "Ewww gross" or "Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to be heard."

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to sexually harass someone, slander someone, commit a hate crime against someone, or libel someone. It also does not mean you can write about having sex with a kid and expect to not get socially crucified for it.

Considering the first is the only one that applies here, it's the only one that I'll respond to. Seriously, Kimi, how are any of these other things even related?

It's a personal journal. Granted, it's for a class, but if the assignment is "write whatever you want", then these teachers are just going to have to suck it up if they write s**t like "I want to ******** your brains out" or anything to that effect. Freedom of speech does grant you the right to say things like that, indeed, even about your teachers.

Saying otherwise suggests that these womyn have the right to not be offended. Do you think womyn have the right to not be offended, and that this right trumps freedom of speech?

EDIT: You should thank me, BTW. It's trolls like me that keep this thread going.

They are related in that they are limits on free speech. If you are against limits on free speech, Luke, I would assume you are against the illegality of libel and slander, no?

Actually, I am. lol

Meroko_Love

Writing what that student did is considered sexual harassment, especially since it is a student-professor relationship and could have potentially gotten her in trouble. In certain cases, yes, I do believe that people should have the freedom from being offended. Isn't that the very logic of hate crimes?

That is probably true, Luke. biggrin

Well, no, hate crime legislation is usually about making certain motives (namely, ones involving the hatred of a given group) aggravating circumstances to another crime (like murder, assault, rape, etc) or crimes unto themselves. What I think you're referring to is hate speech legislation, which, yes, is predicated on this idea that you shouldn't say things that offend people.

That said, I think hate speech legislation is pretty ******** stupid.

Ah, well then, I guess it comes down to differing opinions. I, like Jezebel, am in favor of some limits to free speech like the aforementioned.

However, if you are against all limitations on free speech, you also must be against the illegality of false accusations. Namely, false accusations of rape, which anti-feminists like to throw around as though they happen once a day.
Interesting irony here, because I am in favor of keeping false accusations punishable by law.

[Meroko_Love]

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

A Really Bad Idea

Meroko_Love

Yeah, math and hard sciences are still very much male-dominated areas, and many girls and women are led to believe that boys are just "naturally" better in them.

To be fair; it's hard to disagree if the system ends up rigged to suggest such. My previous post indicated some trneds on coursework vs exams. I may be wrong but don't maths and science tend to be more exam than coursework oriented?

Meroko_Love

I don't think it would be. The reason why many people, mainly females, have issues with females in video games is that they seem to be there mainly for eye candy; the token sex object.
I never see video games with buff brute females as protagonists, even though their male counterparts are like that. (In American games)

But the vast majority of game developers are white men, so video games by default are imbued with the male gaze anyway. neutral

I'm mostly operating by an assumption that it would be a very clunkily handled means of demonstrating independance. In the same respect that male characterisation in shooter games seems to increasingly offer a gruff beachball-man- hybrid. But that's just one cynical opinion.

And yes, the tendancy will be towards a more male-idealism in an industry male dominated. It's somewhat symptomatic as opposed to an endemic in and of itself.

I just mean that in our culture, math and hard science is viewed as masculine subjects, and mostly men take them up; there is certainly a plethora of literature that suggests it has a huge impact on girls and women going into these fields.

Unfortunately, the video game consumers still mainly tend to be boys and men, and there have been a lot of complaints about the "feminine" JRPG male characters, so I have no idea why, but the majority of the male audience seems to like these big, brute, hyper-masculine portrayals of men in video games. neutral

Is it possible that the hard sciences and math are subjects that aren't just viewed as masculine, but objectively are masculine, in that men tend to be better at them?

Objectively? Highly doubtful as females in other cultures excel in math and hard sciences.

You like your human nature claims, huh, Luke.

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

The Living Force

Shirabelle

I highly doubt it's because of our 'caustic culture' when ours is a lot less extreme than many. You will never have complete equality between sexes. The differences are there for a reason and most of our perception and judgment of things are based around differences. It's human nature.

--
If it pleases you.

No, you're right, behaviors are all intrinsic.

Except not. Social behavior is not human nature. Human nature is very seldom mentioned in its actual capacity.

And yes, our culture is caustic. It being less bad than others doesn't make it any less bad. We allow for rampant sexism and then defend it with trite responses about human nature, or women being inferior. We're a developed nation with a population who still believes men to be superior to women. We blame rape victims for their rape. Our culture is incredibly hostile towards women and until that changes, we will be hard pressed to make strides towards social equality, which is a feasible goal. Will women and men become androgynous, hermaphroditic entities? No. Does that matter? Also no. Social equality is attainable and to say otherwise is either pessimistic (which you are not being) or naive (which you are being).

PS: Most of our perception and judgment are based upon fear and hatred of differences, and xenophobia is not human nature any more than it is for girls to like dolls and boys to like cars. Which is to say not at all.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that women aren't inferior?

After all, per your own narrative, you believe that men have collectively managed to dominate women outright, worldwide, for millennia, perhaps millions of years. You call this "patriarchy". This sounds like a clear indication that men are superior, as if they were not, they would not be in such a position to dominate the opposite sex.

You are totally right, Luke. Patriarchy is natural, inevitable, human nature. Clearly, if patriarchy has survived for so long, brought about industrialization and modernization, it is clear that men are the superior sex.

You're learning, cutie-pie. In all seriousness, I don't think women are biologically inferior, but I do think they're biologically different, and this has ultimately resulted in their subjugation. Fortunately, I think modern developments are going to balance things out a lot more. Less fortunately, I also think they have already advantaged women in some regards.

I'm just curious; in what ways do you think modern developments have advantaged women at the expense of men?

It's a combination of two things:

1) The collective shirking of traditional female limitations, and
2) The collective retention of traditional female privileges (or if you prefer another word for it, I'll use that)

It's created an, overall, "have your cake and eat it too" scenario for women, where they are free to do what they want, but if they get in trouble for one reason or another, they can just blame the patriarchy and expect society, their spouse/significant other, etc, to bail them out, and actually get it.

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

A Really Bad Idea

Meroko_Love

Yeah, math and hard sciences are still very much male-dominated areas, and many girls and women are led to believe that boys are just "naturally" better in them.

To be fair; it's hard to disagree if the system ends up rigged to suggest such. My previous post indicated some trneds on coursework vs exams. I may be wrong but don't maths and science tend to be more exam than coursework oriented?

Meroko_Love

I don't think it would be. The reason why many people, mainly females, have issues with females in video games is that they seem to be there mainly for eye candy; the token sex object.
I never see video games with buff brute females as protagonists, even though their male counterparts are like that. (In American games)

But the vast majority of game developers are white men, so video games by default are imbued with the male gaze anyway. neutral

I'm mostly operating by an assumption that it would be a very clunkily handled means of demonstrating independance. In the same respect that male characterisation in shooter games seems to increasingly offer a gruff beachball-man- hybrid. But that's just one cynical opinion.

And yes, the tendancy will be towards a more male-idealism in an industry male dominated. It's somewhat symptomatic as opposed to an endemic in and of itself.

I just mean that in our culture, math and hard science is viewed as masculine subjects, and mostly men take them up; there is certainly a plethora of literature that suggests it has a huge impact on girls and women going into these fields.

Unfortunately, the video game consumers still mainly tend to be boys and men, and there have been a lot of complaints about the "feminine" JRPG male characters, so I have no idea why, but the majority of the male audience seems to like these big, brute, hyper-masculine portrayals of men in video games. neutral

Is it possible that the hard sciences and math are subjects that aren't just viewed as masculine, but objectively are masculine, in that men tend to be better at them?

Objectively? Highly doubtful as females in other cultures excel in math and hard sciences.

You like your human nature claims, huh, Luke.

In which cultures do females dominate males in hard sciences and maths, and how populous are these societies?

[Robot Macai]

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to sexually harass someone, slander someone, commit a hate crime against someone, or libel someone. It also does not mean you can write about having sex with a kid and expect to not get socially crucified for it.

Considering the first is the only one that applies here, it's the only one that I'll respond to. Seriously, Kimi, how are any of these other things even related?

It's a personal journal. Granted, it's for a class, but if the assignment is "write whatever you want", then these teachers are just going to have to suck it up if they write s**t like "I want to ******** your brains out" or anything to that effect. Freedom of speech does grant you the right to say things like that, indeed, even about your teachers.

Saying otherwise suggests that these womyn have the right to not be offended. Do you think womyn have the right to not be offended, and that this right trumps freedom of speech?

EDIT: You should thank me, BTW. It's trolls like me that keep this thread going.

They are related in that they are limits on free speech. If you are against limits on free speech, Luke, I would assume you are against the illegality of libel and slander, no?

Actually, I am. lol

Meroko_Love

Writing what that student did is considered sexual harassment, especially since it is a student-professor relationship and could have potentially gotten her in trouble. In certain cases, yes, I do believe that people should have the freedom from being offended. Isn't that the very logic of hate crimes?

That is probably true, Luke. biggrin

Well, no, hate crime legislation is usually about making certain motives (namely, ones involving the hatred of a given group) aggravating circumstances to another crime (like murder, assault, rape, etc) or crimes unto themselves. What I think you're referring to is hate speech legislation, which, yes, is predicated on this idea that you shouldn't say things that offend people.

That said, I think hate speech legislation is pretty ******** stupid.

Ah, well then, I guess it comes down to differing opinions. I, like Jezebel, am in favor of some limits to free speech like the aforementioned.

However, if you are against all limitations on free speech, you also must be against the illegality of false accusations. Namely, false accusations of rape, which anti-feminists like to throw around as though they happen once a day.
Interesting irony here, because I am in favor of keeping false accusations punishable by law.

I'm not against all limitations on freedom of speech. Just most.

Here is a list (probably exhaustive, but maybe you can come up with something else that I'll agree should be prohibited):
1) Perjury (such as a false accusation, but it has to be in a courtroom or other similar legal context),
2) Child pornography,
3) Serious threats to body or property ("I'm going to ******** kill you!" or "Your barn could burn down real easy if you keep this s**t up" are examples)

EDIT: To clarify, I wouldn't want to censor Jezebel for calling someone a rapist before being convicted, or for falsifying evidence that they are, in fact, guilty of rape and then publishing it, but I would want to punish someone that worked for Jezebel if they tried to bring that s**t to court.

[A Really Bad Idea]

Meroko_Love

I just mean that in our culture, math and hard science is viewed as masculine subjects, and mostly men take them up; there is certainly a plethora of literature that suggests it has a huge impact on girls and women going into these fields.

True enough. Although I would note the general trend of female performance being better having it's own ingraination issues. Not to counter; just to generally provoke the point (since these were quickest on hand for me looking to gender disparity in education).

Quote:

Unfortunately, the video game consumers still mainly tend to be boys and men, and there have been a lot of complaints about the "feminine" JRPG male characters, so I have no idea why, but the majority of the male audience seems to like these big, brute, hyper-masculine portrayals of men in video games. neutral

To be fair; the androgenous look is tiresome when it's held on for so long. Let alone being irksome generally. As to the majority of the audience liking that; I'm not sure whether I could validate that or no but I'd blame the general theme of mind which pruchases several copies of the same sodding game but different shades of brown various war games.

[Meroko_Love]

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Considering the first is the only one that applies here, it's the only one that I'll respond to. Seriously, Kimi, how are any of these other things even related?

It's a personal journal. Granted, it's for a class, but if the assignment is "write whatever you want", then these teachers are just going to have to suck it up if they write s**t like "I want to ******** your brains out" or anything to that effect. Freedom of speech does grant you the right to say things like that, indeed, even about your teachers.

Saying otherwise suggests that these womyn have the right to not be offended. Do you think womyn have the right to not be offended, and that this right trumps freedom of speech?

EDIT: You should thank me, BTW. It's trolls like me that keep this thread going.

They are related in that they are limits on free speech. If you are against limits on free speech, Luke, I would assume you are against the illegality of libel and slander, no?

Actually, I am. lol

Meroko_Love

Writing what that student did is considered sexual harassment, especially since it is a student-professor relationship and could have potentially gotten her in trouble. In certain cases, yes, I do believe that people should have the freedom from being offended. Isn't that the very logic of hate crimes?

That is probably true, Luke. biggrin

Well, no, hate crime legislation is usually about making certain motives (namely, ones involving the hatred of a given group) aggravating circumstances to another crime (like murder, assault, rape, etc) or crimes unto themselves. What I think you're referring to is hate speech legislation, which, yes, is predicated on this idea that you shouldn't say things that offend people.

That said, I think hate speech legislation is pretty ******** stupid.

Ah, well then, I guess it comes down to differing opinions. I, like Jezebel, am in favor of some limits to free speech like the aforementioned.

However, if you are against all limitations on free speech, you also must be against the illegality of false accusations. Namely, false accusations of rape, which anti-feminists like to throw around as though they happen once a day.
Interesting irony here, because I am in favor of keeping false accusations punishable by law.

I'm not against all limitations on freedom of speech. Just most.

Here is a list (probably exhaustive, but maybe you can come up with something else that I'll agree should be prohibited):
1) Perjury (such as a false accusation, but it has to be in a courtroom or other similar legal context),
2) Child pornography,
3) Serious threats to body or property ("I'm going to ******** kill you!" or "Your barn could burn down real easy if you keep this s**t up" are examples)

EDIT: To clarify, I wouldn't want to censor Jezebel for calling someone a rapist before being convicted, or for falsifying evidence that they are, in fact, guilty of rape and then publishing it, but I would want to punish someone that worked for Jezebel if they tried to bring that s**t to court.

1) I agree with that.
2) That's not speech, though, unless do you mean animated child pornography?
3) Agreed.

What about sexual harassment? Such things like multiple disturbing messages on a phone, or letters in a mailbox, or even verbally, and I'm not talking an isolated incident, but usually repeated, which is what our current law recognizes. This applies to anyone, but I think it is especially good for children who could easily become traumatized by such acts.

[Meroko_Love]

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Meroko_Love

Robot Macai

Do you have any evidence to suggest that women aren't inferior?

After all, per your own narrative, you believe that men have collectively managed to dominate women outright, worldwide, for millennia, perhaps millions of years. You call this "patriarchy". This sounds like a clear indication that men are superior, as if they were not, they would not be in such a position to dominate the opposite sex.

You are totally right, Luke. Patriarchy is natural, inevitable, human nature. Clearly, if patriarchy has survived for so long, brought about industrialization and modernization, it is clear that men are the superior sex.

You're learning, cutie-pie. In all seriousness, I don't think women are biologically inferior, but I do think they're biologically different, and this has ultimately resulted in their subjugation. Fortunately, I think modern developments are going to balance things out a lot more. Less fortunately, I also think they have already advantaged women in some regards.

I'm just curious; in what ways do you think modern developments have advantaged women at the expense of men?

It's a combination of two things:

1) The collective shirking of traditional female limitations, and
2) The collective retention of traditional female privileges (or if you prefer another word for it, I'll use that)

It's created an, overall, "have your cake and eat it too" scenario for women, where they are free to do what they want, but if they get in trouble for one reason or another, they can just blame the patriarchy and expect society, their spouse/significant other, etc, to bail them out, and actually get it.

Female privileges? You would call benevolent sexism a privilege? If this is "privilege" then why is it that in extremely patriarchal/misogynistic cultures, like Afghanistan and China, women have far more of this "privilege" than in America, yet have it so much worse from a perspective of autonomy.

For example, in China, women are almost NEVER arrested, because they are seen as too delicate and harmless to be a real threat, and their rights have plummeted after Communism and are being ever more oppressed by being fired first at jobs, beaten by husbands or fathers, and sexually assaulted at high rates.
Same in Afghanistan, marital rape is legal, yet women have much "female privilege" as you call it due to traditional views of women.

I do not see this as a privilege but justification for oppression of women. If it were a privilege, why would these "female privileges" decrease in the cultures where feminism has been most successful? It's patronizing and restricting being treated like a child, not a privilege.