It's less bigoted and more a sweeping generalization. And I do often try to stand up against that behavior. However, it's hard to argue with half of the class+ the teacher with little to no support usually.
If you're arguing with half the class and a prof, I'm betting you aren't just putting forth a solid argument against some bigoted tripe, you're spouting some shit of your own. Which isn't exactly hard to picture the way you've been going so far.
I find the statement that "Men are more naturally built for work requiring alot of labor like construction work" to not be bigoted.
Bingo, you're a 'tard. Thanks for playing.
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
And, I guess you right Incenjucar. Enough people sit on their ass all day that all that extra testosterone and ease of muscle building just goes to waste.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
Unfortunately, jobs requiring large amounts of physical labor are more dangerous and deleterious to men's health.
Solution? Find ways of making them safer and less strenous through technology, teamwork, and technique. If you do this, it doesn't matter if women have less muscle mass on average then men, they'll be just as capable of doing the same job.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Can you think of one instance where education and poverty reduction didn't achieve an increase in women's rights?
Female literacy rates in the second and third world correlate directly to a decrease in birth rates; which correlates to an increase in female life expectancy; which correlates to a higher GDP; which correlates to improved quality of life for both genders; which correlates to an increase in male life expectancy.
And the causal chain seems to be pretty much as I described above. Educate the wimminfolk, and they stop having as many babies and start wanting jobs. When they have jobs, they contribute to the economy; when the economy gets better, the country starts to move from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy to a service economy which is better for the men, so they start living longer (meanwhile medical care and nutrition improve for everybody as well).
It's like that old adage about how if one person isn't free nobody is free? Well, stupid restrictive gender roles work both ways. For every woman who has to stay home barefoot and pregnant, there's a man who has to go out and work a job that threatens to drive him to an early grave (through either stress, toxic environment, or sheer immediate danger). If one side benefits, so does the other. If you play the game correctly, it's a non-zero-sum result.
Really can't emphasise that enough. "patriarchy is bad for men too" is something that really needs to be hammered home.
One thing that really kills me is the feminists that will yell at you for holding a door for them.
I have heard this many times. I have met many "feminists" who I would describe as "man-hating."
Not once, not one single time have I ever been yelled at for holding the door open for someone, and I'm one of those people who will hold the door open for someone fifteen feet behind me.
The worst that's ever happened is that they didn't say "thank you." And I've gotten that pretty equally from men and women.
Feral, thank you. One of my previous and less articulate points.
Again, I would like to clarify that while I understand that not all feminists are conniving and sexist, in my experience, the majority of them are. It seems that in most of the respondents' experiences as well, the majority of people who claim to be feminists are sexists looking for an easy ride.
I had no idea that what I said were arguments used by trolls against the feminist blogosphere. I dont really keep up with blogs at all, and it was not my intentions to troll.
In fact, I was listing those things as the dark side of feminism. Feminism corrupted if you will, not being employed the way it was meant to be.
The fact that you date women who expect you to pay for things isn't a side of feminism, though. Dark or light. It just has nothing to do with it.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
Unfortunately, jobs requiring large amounts of physical labor are more dangerous and deleterious to men's health.
Solution? Find ways of making them safer and less strenous through technology, teamwork, and technique. If you do this, it doesn't matter if women have less muscle mass on average then men, they'll be just as capable of doing the same job.
I've gotta agree with you Feral. You've made several excellent points in this thread. We do totally need a better word for Feminism, as it is not a gender-neutral word. Gender Equality works but it is very wordy.
I can only think of one problem with women gaining equal footing with men in the workplace. And that is the Two Income Trap. It's a really sad, exploitive side effect of women in the workplace by corporations and companies. If your not familiar with what that means, it's that since now both the man and the woman of the house can work, they are expected to work. Therefore, prices of housing, food, gas, etc. etc. has risen to take into account the two incomes.
There's alot of problems with this. Who is at home to take care of and raise the kids? Both the father and the mother have to work to support themselves and the extra mouth(s) to feed. What happens if one of the parents gets fired or they have a divorce? Suddenly they are down to one income and are forced to go into debt. It's really an awful exploitation by buisnesses. I'd love to be a stay at home dad and watch the kids, especially if my wife had a more lucrative career then me. But, with the two income trap it doesn't seem possible.
It's a very real issue where I live in SoCal. The price of land and living is so rediculously high. I am very much entertaining the idea of moving out of state before I even consider something like marrying and having a family.
It's less bigoted and more a sweeping generalization. And I do often try to stand up against that behavior. However, it's hard to argue with half of the class+ the teacher with little to no support usually.
If you're arguing with half the class and a prof, I'm betting you aren't just putting forth a solid argument against some bigoted tripe, you're spouting some shit of your own. Which isn't exactly hard to picture the way you've been going so far.
I find the statement that "Men are more naturally built for work requiring alot of labor like construction work" to not be bigoted.
Bingo, you're a 'tard. Thanks for playing.
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
And, I guess you right Incenjucar. Enough people sit on their ass all day that all that extra testosterone and ease of muscle building just goes to waste.
That's the only problem point, really. The rest is fine, but the thing about human strength variation is that there's more difference within the genders than between them - so, there's men out there who are pretty puny and outclassed by stronger women, and neither of the participants in that scenario are freaks. Secondly, women aren't exactly flat-out weaker - we've got shit upper-body strength, but we're pretty solid in the lower body, and have better balance because of a lower centre of gravity. Again, on average. I've got weird big shoulders and fall over a lot >.> you're just overgeneralising, and that pisses people off for a good reason. Well, and the way that sentence was phrased is pretty confrontational. People can read into that kind of thing, and perhaps assert that you feel threatened at the thought of being out-beefed by a lady.
Really can't emphasise that enough. "patriarchy is bad for men too" is something that really needs to be hammered home.
But Cat like the family, God's family or whatever -- it totally fucks that shit up.
Is it appropriate to give feminists credit for the sexual revolution as well? Who do we give credit for that to? Because that little revolution was decent in my book.
It's less bigoted and more a sweeping generalization. And I do often try to stand up against that behavior. However, it's hard to argue with half of the class+ the teacher with little to no support usually.
If you're arguing with half the class and a prof, I'm betting you aren't just putting forth a solid argument against some bigoted tripe, you're spouting some shit of your own. Which isn't exactly hard to picture the way you've been going so far.
I find the statement that "Men are more naturally built for work requiring alot of labor like construction work" to not be bigoted.
Bingo, you're a 'tard. Thanks for playing.
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
And, I guess you right Incenjucar. Enough people sit on their ass all day that all that extra testosterone and ease of muscle building just goes to waste.
That's the only problem point, really. The rest is fine, but the thing about human strength variation is that there's more difference within the genders than between them - so, there's men out there who are pretty puny and outclassed by stronger women, and neither of the participants in that scenario are freaks. Secondly, women aren't exactly flat-out weaker - we've got shit upper-body strength, but we're pretty solid in the lower body, and have better balance because of a lower centre of gravity. Again, on average. I've got weird big shoulders and fall over a lot >.> you're just overgeneralising, and that pisses people off for a good reason. Well, and the way that sentence was phrased is pretty confrontational. People can read into that kind of thing, and perhaps assert that you feel threatened at the thought of being out-beefed by a lady.
Well, the sentence is worded poorly. That's my fault.
And yes, it's an overgeneralization, it's true. People of all sexes come in a wonderful bevy of shapes and sizes. I still feel that men are more naturally inclined and built for manual labor than women, if only by a little bit.
And on the contrary, I find women that could kick my ass to be very, very hot. Of course, bulging, rippling muscles on a woman is a turn off for me. But, that's probably because I find guys with those kinds of muscles to look utterly rediculous. On a woman, it looks equally out of place.
One thing that really kills me is the feminists that will yell at you for holding a door for them.
I have heard this many times. I have met many "feminists" who I would describe as "man-hating."
Not once, not one single time have I ever been yelled at for holding the door open for someone, and I'm one of those people who will hold the door open for someone fifteen feet behind me.
The worst that's ever happened is that they didn't say "thank you." And I've gotten that pretty equally from men and women.
Yeah, this is the type of thing I feel like I hear about all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen it actually happen.
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
Yeah chief, I'm familiar with basic biology. But here's the thing:
You ever work construction of any kind? Ever? I have. Funny thing about it: there's some lifting involved, but most jobs, most times, it's nothing spectacular. Certainly I can lift everything I've ever had to, and I'm not Charles friggin' Atlas or something; an average in-shape woman could certain lift just as much as I've ever had to. I'm no more naturally suited to it than she is or vice-versa.
It's not the basic "women are built differently then men, in general" thing I find stupid. That's absolutely true, in general. But there are definitely women who are built towards the heavy lifting side of things and more than a few 90lb guys in this world. And just because the top theoretical strength of a woman falls below the top theoretical strength of a man, it doesn't mean that suddenly women are ill suited for any job requiring any strength at all. Only in jobs which require that top-end, phenomenal, peak of your species strength are the differences going to matter in the least, and at that level men are no more "naturally" suited to it then women; it takes phenomenal dedication from anyone to meet those kinds of requirements.
You catch shit when you make these ridiculous generalization for good reason. Those jobs are spectacularly rare; "manual labor jobs like construction" spectacularly common. Consider not blaming my reading skills for your sloppy thinking in the future.
It's less bigoted and more a sweeping generalization. And I do often try to stand up against that behavior. However, it's hard to argue with half of the class+ the teacher with little to no support usually.
If you're arguing with half the class and a prof, I'm betting you aren't just putting forth a solid argument against some bigoted tripe, you're spouting some shit of your own. Which isn't exactly hard to picture the way you've been going so far.
I find the statement that "Men are more naturally built for work requiring alot of labor like construction work" to not be bigoted.
Bingo, you're a 'tard. Thanks for playing.
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
And, I guess you right Incenjucar. Enough people sit on their ass all day that all that extra testosterone and ease of muscle building just goes to waste.
That's the only problem point, really. The rest is fine, but the thing about human strength variation is that there's more difference within the genders than between them - so, there's men out there who are pretty puny and outclassed by stronger women, and neither of the participants in that scenario are freaks. Secondly, women aren't exactly flat-out weaker - we've got shit upper-body strength, but we're pretty solid in the lower body, and have better balance because of a lower centre of gravity. Again, on average. I've got weird big shoulders and fall over a lot >.> you're just overgeneralising, and that pisses people off for a good reason. Well, and the way that sentence was phrased is pretty confrontational. People can read into that kind of thing, and perhaps assert that you feel threatened at the thought of being out-beefed by a lady.
You know... if somebody at any job is lifting more than 50 pounds at a time without assistance, something is seriously wrong and they're going to fuck up their back. The statistical variation between men and women's muscle mass isn't large enough to matter on an individual level if you're trying to hire somebody who can lift that much. There are plenty of women who can lift 50 pounds just fine and plenty of men who can't.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Being stupid enough to max out your income is a bad thing.
Sane people get to work on nest eggs as soon as possible, so they can secure a future income that can't be disrupted.
My family has always been set up so that, if one of them lost their job, they'd still be fine.
Man, you totally missed the point.
Dual-income is a GOOD thing.
Being forced to have dual-income to make ends meet? That's a BAD thing.
This is a really big issue facing people who have recieved low levels of education where I live, due to the cost of living.
My family personally was set up so that only my dad ever had to work. And my mom was a stay at home mom who ocassional pursued side-jobs that met her fancy to keep herself busy and out of the house.
The point is, not everyone, especially families with low-income jobs do not have that luxury. They need both incomes just to make ends meet so when something goes wrong they end up in debt.
Inquistor: Body strength between the genders, when given the same amount of nutrition and labor (Which is very very rare in both cases), are more or less equal through the course of a day. What women lack in upper body strength they make up for in lower body strength and endurance.
The main physical advantage men have had, aside from lack of menstruation and society-determined access to nutrition, is that the things you use to conquer people with are usually held in your hands, and not your feet.
--
My parents aren't forced to have dual incomes. My mom's barely making anything right now (though at one point she was making six figures). I don't have two incomes, and yet I live in a very very nice apartment in a good part of town in an amazing location and I'm comfortably paying off a car in installments of 600 dollars a month. I'm fresh out of college.
Nobody is -forced- in to dual incomes. It just makes life much much much nicer.
Not once, not one single time have I ever been yelled at for holding the door open for someone, and I'm one of those people who will hold the door open for someone fifteen feet behind me.
The worst that's ever happened is that they didn't say "thank you." And I've gotten that pretty equally from men and women.
Yeah, this is the type of thing I feel like I hear about all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen it actually happen.
I've been yelled at for holding the door open for somebody.
But it was in high school and she was this oversensitive pseudo-feminist moron who got all up in people's faces all the time about the stupidest shit and I knew even at the age of 14 that she wasn't really a feminist, she was just a twat.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Being stupid enough to max out your income is a bad thing.
Sane people get to work on nest eggs as soon as possible, so they can secure a future income that can't be disrupted.
My family has always been set up so that, if one of them lost their job, they'd still be fine.
Man, you totally missed the point.
Dual-income is a GOOD thing.
Being forced to have dual-income to make ends meet? That's a BAD thing.
This is a really big issue facing people who have recieved low levels of education where I live, due to the cost of living.
My family personally was set up so that only my dad ever had to work. And my mom was a stay at home mom who ocassional pursued side-jobs that met her fancy to keep herself busy and out of the house.
The point is, not everyone, especially families with low-income jobs do not have that luxury. They need both incomes just to make ends meet so when something goes wrong they end up in debt.
Does SoCal have a disproportionately large number of working wives such that you could attribute the high cost of living to dual income households, and no other possible causes?
Being stupid enough to max out your income is a bad thing.
Sane people get to work on nest eggs as soon as possible, so they can secure a future income that can't be disrupted.
My family has always been set up so that, if one of them lost their job, they'd still be fine.
Man, you totally missed the point.
Dual-income is a GOOD thing.
Being forced to have dual-income to make ends meet? That's a BAD thing.
This is a really big issue facing people who have recieved low levels of education where I live, due to the cost of living.
My family personally was set up so that only my dad ever had to work. And my mom was a stay at home mom who ocassional pursued side-jobs that met her fancy to keep herself busy and out of the house.
The point is, not everyone, especially families with low-income jobs do not have that luxury. They need both incomes just to make ends meet so when something goes wrong they end up in debt.
You're absolutely right about the dual income trap. And its a point of contention in many circles. I don't think you can blame feminism, though. Its a capitalist trap more than anything.
Well then, I'll concede the point of body strength to being equal between the genders. The few health classes I had taken had books basically stating that the difference was much more pronounced. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised to find some of these books written by men, so the possibility of a bias is certainly decent.
I have done manual labor. I've set up the jumps for horses at horse shows. Those things are far heavier then I expected them to be. But, like I said. I'll concede that point to you sen. Turns out the biological differences arent as large as I had previously been led to believe.
Regarding the dual-income trap... a lot can be said for work-from-home, telecommuting, and flexible work schedule arrangements. In any case, the major side effect of the trap is a further reduction in the number of people who want to have kids and the number of kids they have. I just see it as a natural progression to slower population growth as the world approaches a more uniform first-world economy.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Can you think of one instance where education and poverty reduction didn't achieve an increase in women's rights?
Female literacy rates in the second and third world correlate directly to a decrease in birth rates; which correlates to an increase in female life expectancy; which correlates to a higher GDP; which correlates to improved quality of life for both genders; which correlates to an increase in male life expectancy.
And the causal chain seems to be pretty much as I described above. Educate the wimminfolk, and they stop having as many babies and start wanting jobs. When they have jobs, they contribute to the economy; when the economy gets better, the country starts to move from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy to a service economy which is better for the men, so they start living longer (meanwhile medical care and nutrition improve for everybody as well).
It's like that old adage about how if one person isn't free nobody is free? Well, stupid restrictive gender roles work both ways. For every woman who has to stay home barefoot and pregnant, there's a man who has to go out and work a job that threatens to drive him to an early grave (through either stress, toxic environment, or sheer immediate danger). If one side benefits, so does the other. If you play the game correctly, it's a non-zero-sum result.
Much truth in that post. All those Gulf countries wouldn't need so many foreign workers if they didn't pull half their population out of the available work force.
Cat: I totally agree. I am not blaming feminism. I am saying it is a horrible and sad exploitation of feminsim BY capitalism. So we are in complete agreement.
Hooray: The high cost of living probably stems from california being a "wonderful place to live" which has lead to the price of land going up and up with the cost of living. It is because of this that people are forced into the dual-income trap, not dual-income forcing the prices up. I don't have any numbers to back this up though.
Incenjur: I am not sure where you live. But the way apartments are priced where I live, if your job does not pay that great you need two incomes to make ends meet. So yes, I guess I am saying poor people are poor in a way. But, now you need two poor people working together to not go into debt.
Well then, I'll concede the point of body strength to being equal between the genders. The few health classes I had taken had books basically stating that the difference was much more pronounced. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised to find some of these books written by men, so the possibility of a bias is certainly decent.
I have done manual labor. I've set up the jumps for horses at horse shows. Those things are far heavier then I expected them to be. But, like I said. I'll concede that point to you sen. Turns out the biological differences arent as large as I had previously been led to believe.
They don't have to be written by men to be biased I think its more that that's just one of those "but its common sense" things that aren't, really, like "men who don't like sports are weird". Silly stuff.
In my own experience, I work a fairly manual-labour heavy job (soil sampling). When I started, I couldn't manage a couple of the heavier items easily, like the big table we lay the sample out on. I could move it around and get it on and off the truck, but only by levering it all over the place. Do-able, but it took longer. After a couple of months at the gym, I could lift it clear as easily as the guys I work with. Its not that I was weak per se, I just hadn't needed to be strong before then.
Feral, thank you. One of my previous and less articulate points.
Again, I would like to clarify that while I understand that not all feminists are conniving and sexist, in my experience, the majority of them are. It seems that in most of the respondents' experiences as well, the majority of people who claim to be feminists are sexists looking for an easy ride.
You need to stop using "in my experience" as a cover. If you're going to be bigoted, at least do it out in the open like a grown up.
As it is, this is just "Hey, why is everyone in my face? I'm not saying every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster, but in my experience every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster. How am I supposed to know better??"
In general, men have broader shoulders, a higher center of gravity, and more upper body strength than women. In general women have broader hips, a lower center of gravity, and greater lower body strength than men. Biologically, men are built to kill, women are built to give birth. As a society, we try to forget that we're animals but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging our origins and coming to terms with the fact that we are still shaped by hormones. The trick there is that one must always base decisions and opinions on the individual and not the gender.
Well, I've got to call it a night guys. Class early in the morning and all.
Thanks for the lesson in biology. It's amazing what things you hear so often that you just accept, like napoleon being short, when he was actually taller then the average frenchmen at the time.
I live near Fresno, California where you can rent an apartment for as low as 350. Not per person, the actual apartment itself.
I could be paying for a not-sucky condo for like 550 a month, for that matter, in a fairly safe area (a short walk from my work, which happens to be right next to the SWAT office). Not as nice as where I live, but I could, like, sell it later.
Now, we have some serious poverty issues here, but that's because we also have the fastest growing population in the whole damned country, and the 4th lowest education level.
You're absolutely right about the dual income trap. And its a point of contention in many circles. I don't think you can blame feminism, though. Its a capitalist trap more than anything.
This is hyper-limed, for those of you who can't tell.
The "dual-income trap" is one of the primary reasons we have child labor laws; if we allowed children to work, a lot of parents would make them work, because having multiple incomes is much easier than having one.
In general, men have broader shoulders, a higher center of gravity, and more upper body strength than women. In general women have broader hips, a lower center of gravity, and greater lower body strength than men. Biologically, men are built to kill, women are built to give birth. As a society, we try to forget that we're animals but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging our origins and coming to terms with the fact that we are still shaped by hormones. The trick there is that one must always base decisions and opinions on the individual and not the gender.
As it is, this is just "Hey, why is everyone in my face? I'm not saying every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster, but in my experience every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster. How am I supposed to know better??"
Senjutsu, you're taking that way out of context. I flat out said that most of the feminists I've known are like that. Most. I went so far as to say that I think that enough of them are like that to have damaged the credibility and altered the course of the feminist movement. I don't and won't retract that until I find otherwise. Take your ad hominem and sensationalist racism somewhere else.
Edit: Cat, yes that was funny but you know damn well what I mean!
In general, men have broader shoulders, a higher center of gravity, and more upper body strength than women. In general women have broader hips, a lower center of gravity, and greater lower body strength than men. Biologically, men are built to kill, women are built to give birth. As a society, we try to forget that we're animals but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging our origins and coming to terms with the fact that we are still shaped by hormones. The trick there is that one must always base decisions and opinions on the individual and not the gender.
Well then, I'll concede the point of body strength to being equal between the genders. The few health classes I had taken had books basically stating that the difference was much more pronounced. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised to find some of these books written by men, so the possibility of a bias is certainly decent.
Man, I don't mean to be mean here, but have you ever had any non-theoretical, non-book-based contacted with a woman? I don't know that you need to be blaming some textbooks you read a while back for your mistake here. Spend some time around women, hell arm wrestle some female friends, you might get the sense that they can hold their own strength-wise.
Well then, I'll concede the point of body strength to being equal between the genders. The few health classes I had taken had books basically stating that the difference was much more pronounced. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised to find some of these books written by men, so the possibility of a bias is certainly decent.
Man, I don't mean to be mean here, but have you ever had any non-theoretical, non-book-based contacted with a woman? I don't know that you need to be blaming some textbooks you read a while back for your mistake here. Spend some time around women, hell arm wrestle some female friends, you might get the sense that they can hold their own strength-wise.
No offense taken. Yes, I have had contact with those fabled women-folk of yore.
Okay, sarcasm aside. I've beaten every girl I've arm wrestled. Most girls who have punched me (as most like to try after you tell them you've taken a martial art) afterwards exclaim "ouch". I then teach them how to actually throw a punch so they don't end up hurting themselves, but usually there is still no force behind it.
Then again, I am not a very good basis for comparison. I have taken martial arts on and off for many years of my life since a relatively young age. But, I personally dont consider myself that physically fit. But, compared to someone who hasn't taken a martial art, which most girls I know never have, I am definately going to be better fit. I guess I attributed more of the fittness to my gender then to having taken martial arts, because like I said it was an on and off thing.
But, goodnight, for reals this time. I really need to catch up on sleep.
As it is, this is just "Hey, why is everyone in my face? I'm not saying every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster, but in my experience every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster. How am I supposed to know better??"
Senjutsu, you're taking that way out of context. I flat out said that most of the feminists I've known are like that. Most. I went so far as to say that I think that enough of them are like that to have damaged the credibility and altered the course of the feminist movement. I don't and won't retract that until I find otherwise. Take your ad hominem and sensationalist racism somewhere else.
You pretty much don't know what ad hominem means, huh?
You shouldn't need to find a bunch of non-psycho feminists to conclude that every feminist isn't a psycho any more than you should need to meet a non-thugish black person to have to conclude that every black guy isn't a gang-banger.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Taking the characteristics of a limited minority of people you've met from any group and assuming they apply to the whole is just bad faith prejudice that you're dressing up as just "your experience" and "not your fault". It's not as though it would even have taken any effort on your part to disabuse yourself of your notions; read a book on feminism, read a blog, make an effort, do something. But don't sit on your ass and reach bad conclusions that even a two year old is capable of realizing are unlikely to be valid.
About half the women I know could take on the average guy and make them cry.
And I've been tackled and hit by one harder than any guy has ever hit me when trying to actually injure me.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
I admit I haven't met a lot of feminist in my time, but the ones I do know seem to go more on how 'things with penises are evil' rather then gender equality.
Now while I realize this isn't how all feminist (or even a lot) think, it really bothers me.
Y'know, I once had a girl berate me for opening a door for her because I was somehow not respecting her feminine spirit. I told her to kiss my ass, to which she replied that's 'not a nice way to speak to a girl'. It annoys me when people pull double standard BS like that.
Personally I'm all for general equality. Obviously men and women aren't created exactly equal, so we can't always ask them to preform exactly the same. That being said, men and women are equal enough that there are (at best) only a few small things that one gender can do that another cannot in a work-type scenario. In fact, the list is so small I can't even think of anything off the top of my head.
Anyhow, I'm all for what I consider traditional feminism and 100% against this new 'anti-male agenda' BS that masquerades as modern feminism.
I'm very well aware of what the word means and even the blind can see that you're trying to launch personal attacks, at myself and Inquisitor, and use sensationalism to try and make a point. Unfortunately, name calling never makes a point and saying 'LOL NEGROS LIEK TEH WATERMALOONS' doesn't either.
There is a thing called observation. There is something else called pattern recognition. This leads to something called empirical evidence. I have empirical evidence, gleaned from observing a pattern, that the majority of people who associate themselves with feminism are nothing but crooked, sexist, jerks.
From what I can gather, you are saying that my experiences are an invalid basis for forming a belief because... they are my experiences. Please state any point you may have because at this stage, that's really all I'm getting from you.
Posts
It's hard to take you seriously. What with the House avatar and the constant insults.
Read my statement carefully. I am not saying that women are incapable of labor. I am not saying a woman can not do a labor intensive job just as well as a man. I am saying, that due to the physical nature of a man and their hormones they build muscle easier then women (dispute me on this if I am wrong, but I remember my health classes saying just this.) Therefore, men are more naturally built for such work. Naturally. As in born that way, not as in, no matter how hard a woman works they can not equal a man.
And, I guess you right Incenjucar. Enough people sit on their ass all day that all that extra testosterone and ease of muscle building just goes to waste.
Unfortunately, jobs requiring large amounts of physical labor are more dangerous and deleterious to men's health.
Solution? Find ways of making them safer and less strenous through technology, teamwork, and technique. If you do this, it doesn't matter if women have less muscle mass on average then men, they'll be just as capable of doing the same job.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Really can't emphasise that enough. "patriarchy is bad for men too" is something that really needs to be hammered home.
Not once, not one single time have I ever been yelled at for holding the door open for someone, and I'm one of those people who will hold the door open for someone fifteen feet behind me.
The worst that's ever happened is that they didn't say "thank you." And I've gotten that pretty equally from men and women.
Again, I would like to clarify that while I understand that not all feminists are conniving and sexist, in my experience, the majority of them are. It seems that in most of the respondents' experiences as well, the majority of people who claim to be feminists are sexists looking for an easy ride.
-Private actions can harm the public, and can be frowned on even if they aren't strictly illegal. See: Home schooling, business "ethics," etc.
-People corrupt any system available. This is unrelated to the value of the system's intended purpose.
--
Inquisitor: For the love of god, go do some research on farm labor.
The fact that you date women who expect you to pay for things isn't a side of feminism, though. Dark or light. It just has nothing to do with it.
I've gotta agree with you Feral. You've made several excellent points in this thread. We do totally need a better word for Feminism, as it is not a gender-neutral word. Gender Equality works but it is very wordy.
I can only think of one problem with women gaining equal footing with men in the workplace. And that is the Two Income Trap. It's a really sad, exploitive side effect of women in the workplace by corporations and companies. If your not familiar with what that means, it's that since now both the man and the woman of the house can work, they are expected to work. Therefore, prices of housing, food, gas, etc. etc. has risen to take into account the two incomes.
There's alot of problems with this. Who is at home to take care of and raise the kids? Both the father and the mother have to work to support themselves and the extra mouth(s) to feed. What happens if one of the parents gets fired or they have a divorce? Suddenly they are down to one income and are forced to go into debt. It's really an awful exploitation by buisnesses. I'd love to be a stay at home dad and watch the kids, especially if my wife had a more lucrative career then me. But, with the two income trap it doesn't seem possible.
It's a very real issue where I live in SoCal. The price of land and living is so rediculously high. I am very much entertaining the idea of moving out of state before I even consider something like marrying and having a family.
That's the only problem point, really. The rest is fine, but the thing about human strength variation is that there's more difference within the genders than between them - so, there's men out there who are pretty puny and outclassed by stronger women, and neither of the participants in that scenario are freaks. Secondly, women aren't exactly flat-out weaker - we've got shit upper-body strength, but we're pretty solid in the lower body, and have better balance because of a lower centre of gravity. Again, on average. I've got weird big shoulders and fall over a lot >.> you're just overgeneralising, and that pisses people off for a good reason. Well, and the way that sentence was phrased is pretty confrontational. People can read into that kind of thing, and perhaps assert that you feel threatened at the thought of being out-beefed by a lady.
Is it appropriate to give feminists credit for the sexual revolution as well? Who do we give credit for that to? Because that little revolution was decent in my book.
Dual-income is a BAD thing?
No.
Being stupid enough to max out your income is a bad thing.
Sane people get to work on nest eggs as soon as possible, so they can secure a future income that can't be disrupted.
My family has always been set up so that, if one of them lost their job, they'd still be fine.
Well, the sentence is worded poorly. That's my fault.
And yes, it's an overgeneralization, it's true. People of all sexes come in a wonderful bevy of shapes and sizes. I still feel that men are more naturally inclined and built for manual labor than women, if only by a little bit.
And on the contrary, I find women that could kick my ass to be very, very hot. Of course, bulging, rippling muscles on a woman is a turn off for me. But, that's probably because I find guys with those kinds of muscles to look utterly rediculous. On a woman, it looks equally out of place.
You ever work construction of any kind? Ever? I have. Funny thing about it: there's some lifting involved, but most jobs, most times, it's nothing spectacular. Certainly I can lift everything I've ever had to, and I'm not Charles friggin' Atlas or something; an average in-shape woman could certain lift just as much as I've ever had to. I'm no more naturally suited to it than she is or vice-versa.
It's not the basic "women are built differently then men, in general" thing I find stupid. That's absolutely true, in general. But there are definitely women who are built towards the heavy lifting side of things and more than a few 90lb guys in this world. And just because the top theoretical strength of a woman falls below the top theoretical strength of a man, it doesn't mean that suddenly women are ill suited for any job requiring any strength at all. Only in jobs which require that top-end, phenomenal, peak of your species strength are the differences going to matter in the least, and at that level men are no more "naturally" suited to it then women; it takes phenomenal dedication from anyone to meet those kinds of requirements.
You catch shit when you make these ridiculous generalization for good reason. Those jobs are spectacularly rare; "manual labor jobs like construction" spectacularly common. Consider not blaming my reading skills for your sloppy thinking in the future.
You know... if somebody at any job is lifting more than 50 pounds at a time without assistance, something is seriously wrong and they're going to fuck up their back. The statistical variation between men and women's muscle mass isn't large enough to matter on an individual level if you're trying to hire somebody who can lift that much. There are plenty of women who can lift 50 pounds just fine and plenty of men who can't.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Man, you totally missed the point.
Dual-income is a GOOD thing.
Being forced to have dual-income to make ends meet? That's a BAD thing.
This is a really big issue facing people who have recieved low levels of education where I live, due to the cost of living.
My family personally was set up so that only my dad ever had to work. And my mom was a stay at home mom who ocassional pursued side-jobs that met her fancy to keep herself busy and out of the house.
The point is, not everyone, especially families with low-income jobs do not have that luxury. They need both incomes just to make ends meet so when something goes wrong they end up in debt.
The main physical advantage men have had, aside from lack of menstruation and society-determined access to nutrition, is that the things you use to conquer people with are usually held in your hands, and not your feet.
--
My parents aren't forced to have dual incomes. My mom's barely making anything right now (though at one point she was making six figures). I don't have two incomes, and yet I live in a very very nice apartment in a good part of town in an amazing location and I'm comfortably paying off a car in installments of 600 dollars a month. I'm fresh out of college.
Nobody is -forced- in to dual incomes. It just makes life much much much nicer.
--
Wait, is your argument that poor people are poor?
Poor people were poor since before money.
I've been yelled at for holding the door open for somebody.
But it was in high school and she was this oversensitive pseudo-feminist moron who got all up in people's faces all the time about the stupidest shit and I knew even at the age of 14 that she wasn't really a feminist, she was just a twat.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Does SoCal have a disproportionately large number of working wives such that you could attribute the high cost of living to dual income households, and no other possible causes?
You're absolutely right about the dual income trap. And its a point of contention in many circles. I don't think you can blame feminism, though. Its a capitalist trap more than anything.
I have done manual labor. I've set up the jumps for horses at horse shows. Those things are far heavier then I expected them to be. But, like I said. I'll concede that point to you sen. Turns out the biological differences arent as large as I had previously been led to believe.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The same fellows who invented hysteria -- the idea that the uterus WANDERED AROUND THE BODY making women go crazy.
Much truth in that post. All those Gulf countries wouldn't need so many foreign workers if they didn't pull half their population out of the available work force.
Cat: I totally agree. I am not blaming feminism. I am saying it is a horrible and sad exploitation of feminsim BY capitalism. So we are in complete agreement.
Hooray: The high cost of living probably stems from california being a "wonderful place to live" which has lead to the price of land going up and up with the cost of living. It is because of this that people are forced into the dual-income trap, not dual-income forcing the prices up. I don't have any numbers to back this up though.
Incenjur: I am not sure where you live. But the way apartments are priced where I live, if your job does not pay that great you need two incomes to make ends meet. So yes, I guess I am saying poor people are poor in a way. But, now you need two poor people working together to not go into debt.
They don't have to be written by men to be biased
In my own experience, I work a fairly manual-labour heavy job (soil sampling). When I started, I couldn't manage a couple of the heavier items easily, like the big table we lay the sample out on. I could move it around and get it on and off the truck, but only by levering it all over the place. Do-able, but it took longer. After a couple of months at the gym, I could lift it clear as easily as the guys I work with. Its not that I was weak per se, I just hadn't needed to be strong before then.
As it is, this is just "Hey, why is everyone in my face? I'm not saying every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster, but in my experience every black person is an illiterate fried-chicken loving gangster. How am I supposed to know better??"
Thanks for the lesson in biology. It's amazing what things you hear so often that you just accept, like napoleon being short, when he was actually taller then the average frenchmen at the time.
G'night all.
I could be paying for a not-sucky condo for like 550 a month, for that matter, in a fairly safe area (a short walk from my work, which happens to be right next to the SWAT office). Not as nice as where I live, but I could, like, sell it later.
Now, we have some serious poverty issues here, but that's because we also have the fastest growing population in the whole damned country, and the 4th lowest education level.
Not because women work now.
The "dual-income trap" is one of the primary reasons we have child labor laws; if we allowed children to work, a lot of parents would make them work, because having multiple incomes is much easier than having one.
Oh, Steve. Why do you hate men?
Senjutsu, you're taking that way out of context. I flat out said that most of the feminists I've known are like that. Most. I went so far as to say that I think that enough of them are like that to have damaged the credibility and altered the course of the feminist movement. I don't and won't retract that until I find otherwise. Take your ad hominem and sensationalist racism somewhere else.
Edit: Cat, yes that was funny but you know damn well what I mean!
Men are built for bear hugs.
No offense taken. Yes, I have had contact with those fabled women-folk of yore.
Okay, sarcasm aside. I've beaten every girl I've arm wrestled. Most girls who have punched me (as most like to try after you tell them you've taken a martial art) afterwards exclaim "ouch". I then teach them how to actually throw a punch so they don't end up hurting themselves, but usually there is still no force behind it.
Then again, I am not a very good basis for comparison. I have taken martial arts on and off for many years of my life since a relatively young age. But, I personally dont consider myself that physically fit. But, compared to someone who hasn't taken a martial art, which most girls I know never have, I am definately going to be better fit. I guess I attributed more of the fittness to my gender then to having taken martial arts, because like I said it was an on and off thing.
But, goodnight, for reals this time. I really need to catch up on sleep.
You shouldn't need to find a bunch of non-psycho feminists to conclude that every feminist isn't a psycho any more than you should need to meet a non-thugish black person to have to conclude that every black guy isn't a gang-banger.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Taking the characteristics of a limited minority of people you've met from any group and assuming they apply to the whole is just bad faith prejudice that you're dressing up as just "your experience" and "not your fault". It's not as though it would even have taken any effort on your part to disabuse yourself of your notions; read a book on feminism, read a blog, make an effort, do something. But don't sit on your ass and reach bad conclusions that even a two year old is capable of realizing are unlikely to be valid.
And I've been tackled and hit by one harder than any guy has ever hit me when trying to actually injure me.
Now while I realize this isn't how all feminist (or even a lot) think, it really bothers me.
Y'know, I once had a girl berate me for opening a door for her because I was somehow not respecting her feminine spirit. I told her to kiss my ass, to which she replied that's 'not a nice way to speak to a girl'. It annoys me when people pull double standard BS like that.
Personally I'm all for general equality. Obviously men and women aren't created exactly equal, so we can't always ask them to preform exactly the same. That being said, men and women are equal enough that there are (at best) only a few small things that one gender can do that another cannot in a work-type scenario. In fact, the list is so small I can't even think of anything off the top of my head.
Anyhow, I'm all for what I consider traditional feminism and 100% against this new 'anti-male agenda' BS that masquerades as modern feminism.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
There is a thing called observation. There is something else called pattern recognition. This leads to something called empirical evidence. I have empirical evidence, gleaned from observing a pattern, that the majority of people who associate themselves with feminism are nothing but crooked, sexist, jerks.
From what I can gather, you are saying that my experiences are an invalid basis for forming a belief because... they are my experiences. Please state any point you may have because at this stage, that's really all I'm getting from you.