|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 13:57:06 GMT
I'd really like if you could explain in depth what your vision of a world with gender difference-but-equality looks like. This discussion really really can't move forward until you do that. What I worry about is women thinking the root to impowerment is showing they're just as good at the pursuit of power, agression and materialism as men have been thoughout history (whilst messing up the world in the process) and despising the qualities traditionally unfairly exclusively associated with femininity like being gentle, caring, empathic, sensitive, and so forth. I think the world needs more of that from men and women alike and less "rich, agressive and powerful" people of either gender imposing their bullshit on everyone else. But if you're saying that rich, corrupt and power-hungry men are such a bad thing for the world that we should wait for that element of society for fade away before allowing women the freedom to have the equivalent.... nah, I can't get on board with that. This is in danger of turning back into your 'argument' about how all morgage paying jobs are bad, and everyone who works in the city or for a company or the government or the media is corrupt and evil and pandering to The Man, and so forth. I guess that means I should never be allowed the oppertunity to persue a career which you personally (and illogically) disagree with?
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 13:58:15 GMT
i only recently realised how feminist 'just a girl' is. excellent post florence. has anyone in london seen the new posters on busstops that are by tfl and say something like "back in the day even the king would give up his seat for a lady". i saw it briefly today for the first time, but was in a car so i didn't get a good look... can anyone explain what the point of it is? surely bojo isn't suggesting women should have seats given up because they have vajayjays? (related: i have been known to (usually subtley) give up seats to able-bodied women wearing heels, just because i understand the pain at the end of the day)
by the way, i didn't actually post what my opinion was before- my situation is a little more complex. due to physical health problems i'm not meant to carry anything heavy or do anything too strenuous... what i've found is that my female friends are far more likely to keep this in mind and help me out if they realise i'm struggling. my male friends often have to be reminded, and have no problem with helping if i ask, which i quite like in a way, because it means they're assuming i'm capable until told otherwise. which i am the vast majority of the time. in my head i like to think that people are helping me because of unique circumstances, and i'm not quite sure what i'd do if i realised they were trying to help me simply because i'm female. occasionally someone will ask if i need help with something when i'm coping, and i appreciate that they've asked but don't take them up on it as i feel it's a priviledge, not a right to have people help you and that shouldn't be taken advantage of. basically i think it comes down to this: if it's your bag, with your stuff in it, that you've taken somewhere: that's your responsibility, so deal with it. if your body or circumstances prevent you from being able to complete a task- ask for help, don't assume that other people will understand the extent of your limitations and abilities.
i hope this post makes sense, i know it's badly written and my situation is a little muddled.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 14:12:09 GMT
I just think "old fashioned" romantic ideals have their place if people consensually agree to them, and that I don't want the social changes that will and must happen to entirely discredit rare nice things that emerge from a harsh world. But it makes you feel nice being able to offer your charming gentlemanly arm, it makes you feel protective and polite and helpful. And it makes you feel like you're fixing the world, and not doing it harm. AS WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED, as a women, it makes me feel belittled, patronized, awkward, embarrassed, like I am being rendered incapable. It's a 'rare nice thing' for the ego of privileged men, not for 'the world'. And I would argue that most chivalry is something which can't be 'consensually agreed to' anyway, because the simple act of offering chivalry can produce awkward, peeved off feelings in a woman, and warm-and-fuzzy-superior feelings in a man. If chivalry was dead, it wouldn't be the end of the world BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN BE POLITE AND KIND TO EACH OTHER, WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE, REGARDLESS OF SEX AND GENDER ROLES. And I'm not yelling, I'm just bored of using italics. basically i think it comes down to this: if it's your bag, with your stuff in it, that you've taken somewhere: that's your responsibility, so deal with it. if your body or circumstances prevent you from being able to complete a task- ask for help, don't assume that other people will understand the extent of your limitations and abilities. This exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 18, 2010 14:36:06 GMT
I just think "old fashioned" romantic ideals have their place if people consensually agree to them, and that I don't want the social changes that will and must happen to entirely discredit rare nice things that emerge from a harsh world. But it makes you feel nice being able to offer your charming gentlemanly arm, it makes you feel protective and polite and helpful. And it makes you feel like you're fixing the world, and not doing it harm. AS WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED, as a women, it makes me feel belittled, patronized, awkward, embarrassed, like I am being rendered incapable. It's a 'rare nice thing' for the ego of privileged men, not for 'the world'. And I would argue that most chivalry is something which can't be 'consensually agreed to' anyway, because the simple act of offering chivalry can produce awkward, peeved off feelings in a woman, and warm-and-fuzzy-superior feelings in a man. If chivalry was dead, it wouldn't be the end of the world BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN BE POLITE AND KIND TO EACH OTHER, WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE, REGARDLESS OF SEX AND GENDER ROLES. I know i said I was walking away from this but again I'm not every man and you're not every woman (Chaka Khan's first draft?) I've met women who enjoy old fashioned romantic gestures and the like to varying degrees, it can be a nice thing for both genders and I don't think any woman should be made to feel less impowered or vaild because they enjoy expressions of chivalry or have them forced on them if they don't. I'd assume it's best to get to know an indivdual before you spring that stuff on them so you don't make anyone feek crap in the way you just described.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 18, 2010 14:44:40 GMT
i don't think people shouldn't be ashamed and branded as evil witches if they act "characteristically" male or female, same way they shouldn't be made to feel like shit if they act out of the "norm". bag-carrying and pulling out chairs at romantic meals with flowers and chocolates and love letters and all just make me laugh, not because i find it offensive but because it's just stupid and cheesy. people are shit and they should stop being shit the end.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 14:50:26 GMT
ok, let's try an example. say, you're doing something, and it might not be the easiest thing in the world for you personally, but you're getting through it ok- lets use reading a book here (like, war and peace or something, not twilight) and someone comes along and says "i'm good at reading! let me read it to you! although i see you are managing, i'm more capable for the task at hand, so don't you worry your pretty little head about it". at first you'd be like "wtf? why was that necessary? i was doing ok" then you'd be like "well, was i doing ok? i thought i was..." and that thought very easily leads to "i guess they are more capable, so i should let them read it, and i'll stick to stories about sparkly boys" and thus the person who was coping in the first place now believes they need help, when really, it was a bit of a challenge, but the only way to get better at things is to keep doing them when it's hard.
thus, i just illustrated the oppression of women using reading twilight books to symbolise the non-liberated woman. please note: i appreciate the twilight books can be superhard to read sometimes, like, when you're vomiting from the soppiness, or you've clawed your eyes out because of another edward cullen description.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 18, 2010 15:07:40 GMT
I clearly wish I was Edward Cullen.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on Aug 18, 2010 15:11:23 GMT
omg i luv eddy how dre u seyu that about him!!!?!?!?!1
i know what you're saying but that's less of a problem with guys trying to be nice but coming across as dicks and more to do with the fact girls should be taught they're allowed to do things on their own (also allowed to "leech off a man" if they want, WE CAN DO ANYTHING?)
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 15:14:21 GMT
i didn't think the example was needed, personally. we're all intelligent enough to figure out a situation where chivalry may be construed as patronising, in fact there's been a few pages of discussion on the topic in here already... but projecting negative emotions and feelings about such a situation i don't really agree with because not every person is going to feel that way (inadequate, etc) when someone offers to help them.
as i said before, my mum fully appreciates when her boyfriend does "gentlemanly" things for her. she can't be the only woman in the whole world to feel this way.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 15:35:13 GMT
But that just leads to the conclusion of "many women are happy having men do things for them and look after them, under the guise of being romantic and chivalrous, and lots of women are satisfied and happy being housewives, let's just leave things as they are!!" It may be true. But that conclusion sucks. Well done, ladies.
(I'm sorry, backlash against feminism really gets to me. "Lot's of women are happy the way things are. You're an exception to want more, to want all women to be considered fully capable and responsible for themselves, to want more equality. You're causing trouble, just leave it alone you crazy bitch. He was only being polite.")
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 15:42:35 GMT
yeah, but my mum IS happy. i'd rather my mum be happy, you know? it doesn't mean she's not independent or incapable. in fact she's experienced gender discrimination all her life like women do, because she works in an office environment, does more work than her male colleagues yet receives less pay...
i wasn't saying that we should leave things as they are at all.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 15:42:47 GMT
the example was aimed at josh, in response to a post on the last page. the point is that women shouldn't be offered help on the basis of them being women because ultimately it is damaging to society-wide conceptions of females. i really do think that as females if we want to receive equal worth in society's eyes, then we have to suck it up and accept the negative aspects of that equality, and if taking one for the team means opening your own door, or pulling out your own chair then rally it's not much to ask, especially considering the women who died, suffered, starved, were outcast, lost friends and families amongst other injustices so that we could get to the point where men bestowed upon us the privilege of not assuming we're too weak to carry out own bags, or too financially dependant to pay for our own food.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 15:44:17 GMT
^ my bad, sorry for misunderstanding. good point also.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 18, 2010 15:45:38 GMT
But that just leads to the conclusion of "many women are happy having men do things for them and look after them, under the guise of being romantic and chivalrous, and lots of women are satisfied and happy being housewives, let's just leave things as they are!!" It may be true. But that conclusion sucks. Well done, ladies. ^ another BIG logical leap. This just goes back to my core point really, we all agree social change is needed but I don't think EVERYTHING from the old ways of doing things needs to be disgarded for this to happen effectively. Baby, bath water etc. I don't get how "women who choose to be housewives shouldn't be made to feel about about making that choice" automatically means that there's no need for the path to greater equality and opportunity for women to do whatever the hell they want (hopefully!) continue. I believe in social change, just probably not as radical change (radical is NOT a dirty word) extent that some others on this thread might ideally like.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 15:50:28 GMT
Jay, I'm sorry if that last post came across as me being harsh to you/ your mum. I know you weren't say that, I just get wound up and I went off on a rant to myself, haha. Sorry x
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 15:51:32 GMT
i wasn't being backlashy against feminism either so i'm sorry if it came across like i was! no worries florence xx
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 15:57:45 GMT
[ I don't get how "women who choose to be housewives shouldn't be made to feel about about making that choice" automatically means that there's no need for the path to greater equality and opportunity for women to do whatever the hell they want (hopefully!) continue. a lot of people use some women being ok with being "housewives" (i hate that word- as my mother says "when did i marry my house?!") as proof that it's ok for ALL women. it's just the same as the guys who make the logical jump from "those females use sexist language/don't mind me harassing them/just want babies and a husband" to "all females are ok with sexist language/don't mind or like me harassing them/just want babies and a husband
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 18, 2010 16:08:31 GMT
a lot of people use some women being ok with being "housewives" (i hate that word- as my mother says "when did i marry my house?!") as proof that it's ok for ALL women. it's just the same as the guys who make the logical jump from "those females use sexist language/don't mind me harassing them/just want babies and a husband" to "all females are ok with sexist language/don't mind or like me harassing them/just want babies and a husband I know all this, but I haven't said anything like that so I don't see how it's relevent to my point/s. Unless because the sort of opinions I'm putting forward aren't part of the solution as you see it, so they're part of the problem? That reminds me of George Bush's "you're with us or you're against us!" schtick during the War on Terror. See, this is why I'm not an ideological person. It's not as so much of an either/or issue as you guys seem to be making it out as.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 16:21:42 GMT
This just goes back to my core point really, we all agree social change is needed but I don't think everything from the old ways of doing things needs to be disgarded for this to happen effectively. Baby, bath water etc. The elements of society which support the idea of womens inferiority need to be thrown out in order for us to acheive equality effectively. Simple as. How can you not understand that? It doesn't mean we all have to stop being nice to each other. It just means that men persistantly and needlessly assisting women because of his preconcieved notion about her 'weakness' should be stopped. And stop making me out to look like an idiot for making "big logical leaps!!!" My logic is completely valid. Just because some women enjoy being housewives and experiencing chivalry doesn't mean it should be an ideal continually forced onto all women. It should be a choice. So using the arguement "some women enjoy it!!" is a sucky conclusion (which is what I said up there) because if we just conclude that, and stop the debate right there, it hinders the progress toward a world where women actually have that choice. Quite simple, really.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 16:24:04 GMT
Also, I still can't really understand your argument until you explain the 'biological differences' you perceive between sexes. When people say this, they normally mean the stereotype of women being more empathetic, etc etc. But you have disagreed with this. So really, what are you talking about? This is interesting reading on the topic: "Yes, there are basic behavioural differences between the sexes, but we should note that these differences increase with age because our children's intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be. Many of the studies that claim to highlight differences between the brains of males and females are spurious. They are based on tests carried out on only a small number of individuals and their results are often not repeated by other scientists. However, their results are published and are accepted by teachers and others as proof of basic differences between boys and girls. All sorts of ridiculous conclusions about very important issues are then made. Already sexism disguised in neuroscientific finery is changing the way children are taught. There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is moulded by experience."
|
|