|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 16:27:25 GMT
i don't know how much clearer you want the response to be. everytime i try and explain why it's relevant i end up saying the same thing with "because" put on the front. as long as some women choose not to be career-oriented (as they're more than entitled to do) this will be used as proof that women as a whole don't want/need to be career-oriented. thus the two things are intrinsically linkes. there's no particular logic or reason behind this, apart from the assumption that all women are BASICALLY the same. you get that i'm agreeing with you re: a woman's right to choose to be a "housewife" yeah? And stop making me out to look like an idiot for making "big logical leaps!!!" My logic is completely valid. i second this. florence has followed all her points trough to a logical conclusion thus far, whereas i genuinely cannot understand you reasoning for the vast majority of your point thus far. i second florence's request for elaboration on intrinsic biological differences.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Aug 18, 2010 17:13:19 GMT
i genuinely cannot understand you reasoning for the vast majority of your point thus far. Right back at you. I think this is a communication problem. We're just not following each other's thought processes and thus at cross purposes. And stop making me out to look like an idiot for making "big logical leaps!!!" My logic is completely valid. I wasn't trying to make you look stupid and I know you guys haven't been trying to make me look daft either. Just... I'm not following you.. to explain that. Just because some women enjoy being housewives and experiencing chivalry doesn't mean it should be an ideal continually forced onto all women. I've been saying exactly the same thing? 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? I do understand this and agree, the whole point of this discussion and why we're at cross purposes is I don't just don't accept your view that chivlary supports the idea of women's inferiority. Sorry. No matter how well you put your view forward, you aren't going to change my mind there. I'm willing to conceed this debate in your favour Sibz+Florence and confess you've put forward a better case (erm... by actually bothering to put a case forward..) on the "genetic differences" thing. I know ancedotal stuff isn't terribly potent in a debate situation, so my reasoning behind this is pretty feeble. But my views have been formed from my experience of men and women and really it would be too long winded and generalised for me to write a "men are from Venus, women are from Mars" essay from a subjective basis not to mention totally unconvincing. I could try and counter with some scientifical social research (I read that Observer article the other day actually..) or articles but I would have got them via googling rather than any actual grasp on the subject, thus dishonest. So I'll just say.. in my life I have noticed reccuring differences in the behaviour of men and women, (for example I've found women to be more "down to earth" and practical more focused on the "now" and men more prone to ruminating on the abstract"big ideas" and that men seem to more prone to be anal and specific about interets ie making extensive lists, remebering seeming irrelevant facts etc). I find it hard believe that what seems like a reccuring pattern in my expeirence would be down to society as I don't fully understand how society would have that effect. Probably because my personal "individualist" philosophy in other areas down plays the role of society and coummunity in an people's life so it's like a "default" position. Basically I don't have a leg to stand on in terms of offering proof for my percpetion and I aim to keep an open mind on the issue. I've never studied the area of gender or sociology and as I said I just think you two have a much better grasp on this issue. Sorry for that weedy shoulder shrug of an answer, though it would be best to confess to not being the best infromed than to try and bullshit though and pretend my "seperate but equal" inclination is based on solid academic study rather than subjective intitution/observation. Seriously.. guys, you win. I hope you don't find that frustrating after me fighting my corner for such a long back and forth.
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 17:32:49 GMT
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? I do understand this and agree, the whole point of this discussion and why we're at cross purposes is I don't just don't accept your view that chivlary supports the idea of women's inferiority. Sorry. No matter how well you put your view forward, you aren't going to change my mind there. ...But it does!!! Haha, just kidding. That's okay, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Just as an aside - the area of gender and sociology is really fascinating, especially when it comes to the socialisation of children + gender roles and such... so if you're ever bored, it's a fun thing to read about
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 18, 2010 17:55:26 GMT
yeah, i've been reading a book on the sociology of woman, and it features lots of interesting things, like there's a bit where they discuss how studies done in america of newborn babies pretty much all agreed that male babies were more rambunctious, less interested in phyical contact, flailed and cried much more than female babies who were passive, calmer and more responsive to physical contact. obviously there are massive implications to that finding, and a lot of child-rearing advice is still based on these studies (boys need more physical stimulation, girls just want a cuddle etc.). what's interesting though, is that other countries started repeating the study to see if this was a regional phenomenon or what, and they found that very few countries could support the american studies, the vast majority found that babies acted pretty much identically. one day someone pointed something really obvious out- americans love circumcising male babies. and thus, a baby's pain was interpreted as an innate gender trait, and influenced the way society views everyone.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 18, 2010 18:35:36 GMT
Just as an aside - the area of gender and sociology is really fascinating, especially when it comes to the socialisation of children + gender roles and such... so if you're ever bored, it's a fun thing to read about Unless you do it at uni, in which case it turns out to be a bunch of people going 'well, this might be this because of this', with the subtext being 'if you take a lot on faith, make giant leaps in logic or tailor your research methods to produce this specific result, that is!' Sorry. I still have issues with sociology. Mostly because I took it at degree level for three fucking years and still have no idea what the fuck it is. Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by Rhiflect on Aug 18, 2010 22:55:42 GMT
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. This is the answer to every wolfboard debate EVER.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 23:00:21 GMT
i disagree, i think the answer to this debate should be:
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Aug 18, 2010 23:11:38 GMT
I may have written "we'll have to agree to disagree", but in my head I was singing the lyrics to that song.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 19, 2010 3:35:26 GMT
Hello! I stumbled on this late. Why can't I live my life on the internet, whyyyyyy First and foremost, kudos to Florence This thread really made me wish that we had the karma system back and I am not just saying that. However, I'd like to put in my two cents. I'd also like to preface this post with it seems like this thread has calmed down, and I hope that my post doesn't stir up anything. Re: the example of Jay's mother and her boyfriend: I think that's perfectly okay situation, since Jay's mother likes it and I think it's nice to be nice to the person you're dating. Moreover, I think it's okay because it's just a thing happening between two people-- I think where "chivalry" becomes complicated is when it becomes society-wide. Offering help to strangers is a good thing to do in a general sense, but offering help to a female-bodied stranger solely because she is a woman is very problematic. It implies a lack of capability based solely on her gender. quote from Mr R: Being nice to people and offering help certainly isn't a bad thing. However, chivalry is historically and inexorably tied up in the idea that women are "the fairer sex" or "the weaker sex". It stems from medieval thinking. May I propose that you just drop the word "chivalry" and just call it "common human decency" instead? I don't think anyone will complain about that. One last thing! Can I recommend to all reading Schopenhauer's "On Women"? I prefer to look at it as pure comedy gold. In the same way I think Twilight is hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 3:49:25 GMT
May I propose that you just drop the word "chivalry" and just call it "common human decency" instead? I don't think anyone will complain about that. too inside the box. replacing all standard doors with the revolving kind? now that's an idea.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 19, 2010 3:50:10 GMT
But sometimes I get stuck in revolving doors
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 3:54:41 GMT
tap into hidden amazonian strength?
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 7:00:26 GMT
so, from this thread, we can gather that: --opening doors sets back the women's movement --revolving doors sets back the woman's movement and we are left with mixed messages, like always. forever. tongue in cheek, surely. =]
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 19, 2010 8:26:43 GMT
rise up and throw off the shackles of patriarchal door oppression and embrace a world where the only partition between rooms is a beaded curtain
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 10:03:04 GMT
so, one could sorta say it's curtains for the patriarchy. HA.
|
|
|
Post by irrelevant on Aug 19, 2010 10:06:31 GMT
admins: now that everybody's thrown their two cents in, can you cash this thread out and buy us some treats?
and, speaking as a male, i wouldn't even mind that the majority of the tab would be footed by women. ;D
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Aug 19, 2010 10:22:14 GMT
rise up and throw off the shackles of patriarchal door oppression and embrace a world where the only partition between rooms is a beaded curtain what about the automatic door? opens for everyone regardless of gender/race/sexuality/etc...
|
|
|
Post by husbandwifeheroin on Aug 19, 2010 10:33:44 GMT
so, one could sorta say it's curtains for the patriarchy. HA. And /thread.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Aug 19, 2010 14:04:57 GMT
rise up and throw off the shackles of patriarchal door oppression and embrace a world where the only partition between rooms is a beaded curtain what about the automatic door? opens for everyone regardless of gender/race/sexuality/etc... Even better!
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2010 16:25:45 GMT
also this whole thread (mostly florence's point regarding social norms for gender behaviour) reminds me of 'when i was a boy' by dar williams. if you haven't heard that song... you should
|
|