Feminism and Political Correctness (1 Viewer)

[bassistx]

I don't understand the need to "have what he has".
Are we aiming for equality or identicalness? Because the two are certainly not the same. Sigh.
I don't understand what is so wrong with saying "actress" instead of "actor" and "editrix" instead of "editor" - is it really that degrading, ladies? Does it somehow undermine your efforts?
I don't understand why the feminist movement is working against itself - instead of embracing feminism in its whole, changing the English language under the guise of rights, equality, and sexism.
I don't understand why women refuse to remove body hair and refuse to wear bras because "men don't have to". Why are you turning yourself into a man? Isn't that surrendering to the alleged "superior sex"? What makes you different from a man? Why, instead of embracing and accepting these differences, are you highlighting them by ignoring them? Ignoring your feminine figure and everything that goes with being a woman just makes it so blatantly "clear that men are superior". Why can't you be smart and pretty? Why do you dress in trousers instead of skirts? Why do you become agressive in the workplace, acting like a man, in the hopes that that glass-ceiling will open up for you? Just because you're acting like a man? I don't think so. What you look and behave like does not change the fact that you are a woman and instead of being proud of it, you're a walking billboard for the male sex, "acknowledging that being a man is the only way you're possibly going to get anything - it's a man's world".
I don't understand why we make fun of transvestites when heterosexual women dress in "uniforms of the opposite sex" everyday. Why do they not look as "ridiculous"?
I don't understand why the English language, or any language for that matter, has to change the feminine suffix to musculine - you are just giving them more power. You are surrendering, you're giving in, you're being submissive. You prance around in your suit without a scrap of make-up, eyebrows never been waxed and shake people's hands - because kisses are for women and if I'm anything of a woman, I won't get a promotion.
I find this so unbelievably pathetic. What were women fighting for? What are they still fighting for? The right to walk around like a hairy beast? EMBRACE BEING A WOMAN AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT. We have such an advantage over men when it comes to the art of seducation but you've given that up and everything else, why? What for? We have our strengths and our weaknesses so that we compliment each other. If we were identical we wouldn't be in need of the other.
"Mankind" is the entire human race - male and female, black, white, and all shades of grey. "Mankind" is shortened to "man". This does not mean that man is superior to woman. This does not mean that because someone doesn't put "s/he" they are being sexist or chauvinist or feminist or whatever else.
I'm not saying to embrace those negative connotations of being a woman - dumb, stupid driver, never picked up a book, doesn't know anything about cars, etc. But I'd like to see some changes. I'd like to see you prove men wrong instead of supporting them.

I don't understand.
I just don't know why we can't be different but equal. Must we be identical? When will the battle of the sexes end? Will it end with a pair of heels on my feet or flat business shoes?

And to the men, there's something I'd like you to answer:
Do you respect women who are "men" (description above) more than those who accept nature and live comfortably?

I want equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
A kilo of apples and a kilo of oranges are equal. But are they the same? Must they be the same fruit to weigh the same amount? No.

Through identicalness, you lose your identity - which includes your gender because that, scientifically speaking, determines your actions, etc.

If any kids who study language/etymology/feminism/politics/etc. can share what they've been taught, that'd be great.

 

[bassistx]

^ Typical male logic.
If I could get enough women to use their "emotional logic", they just might see the point that not shaving doesn't make you "equal" -__-;;

 

[KFunk]

Is there any real difference between differentiating between the two sexes in the aspects where we have proper genetic differences?

I see no problem with that. That doesn't mean we can say women are unequal, it's just that both sexes have different skills. Men are good at lifting heavy things and beating rocks together, as well as trying to think in their own form of logic; women are good at empathetic situations, picturing fiddly details and using emotional logic.

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

Generalising makes the mistake of referring to the 'average male' or 'average female' as though it means anything on a personal level. Plenty of men have a high EQ while plenty of women are physically strong. The problem with saying that "both sexes have different skills" is that it promotes boxing people into certain roles on the basis of their gender rather than on the basis of the particular skillset that they happen to possess. Gender may change the liklihood that someone will possess certain skills, but it does not fully determine them ---> environmental influences and the 44 autosomes still have a (significant!) role to play.

Also, I should voice my opposition to the position which views gender roles as static entities. For example:

EMBRACE BEING A WOMAN AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT.

This kind of statement seems to assume that there is a core concept which encapsulates 'what it is to be a woman'. Naturally genes will dictate to a large degree things like size, muscle mass, the nature of one's sex organs (etc...) and will also play some role (how significant a role is another question) in the development of certain cognitive capacities. On top of this, however, I think you're going to find a lot of socially constructed stuff. I thus feel that it is a mistake to talk about these issues in terms of 'what it is to be a woman' because in doing so you bypass a crucial part of the debate - i.e. that part of the debate which considers whether gender is largely static/determined, or whether it is something more fluid and socially constructed.

 

[bassistx]

Generalising makes the mistake of referring to the 'average male' or 'average female' as though it means anything on a personal level. Plenty of men have a high EQ while plenty of women are physically strong. The problem with saying that "both sexes have different skills" is that it promotes boxing people into certain roles on the basis of their gender rather than on the basis of the particular skillset that they happen to possess. Gender may change the liklihood that someone will possess certain skills, but it does not fully determine them ---> environmental influences and the 44 autosomes still have a (significant!) role to play.

Yeah, okay. So there are strong women.
But mate, even in the Olympics - all about unity, harmony, and whatever - females and males don't compete against each other (as far as I am aware?). To make a superior female athlete, the VOX2 is 60, I think. I don't remember. But it's significantly less for a male. I'm searching for the figures on google, but I can't find anything - only calculators.

This kind of statement seems to assume that there is a core concept which encapsulates 'what it is to be a woman'. Naturally genes will dictate to a large degree things like size, muscle mass, the nature of one's sex organs (etc...) and will also play some role (how significant a role is another question) in the development of certain cognitive capacities. On top of this, however, I think you're going to find a lot of socially constructed stuff. I thus feel that it is a mistake to talk about these issues in terms of 'what it is to be a woman' because in doing so you bypass a crucial part of the debate - i.e. that part of the debate which considers whether gender is largely static/determined, or whether it is something more fluid and socially constructed.

Yes, it's socially constructed. But you can't sort of say, "Oh, but cave women didn't shave" and "don't call me an actress, refer to me in the masculine form, please". Wtf? Seriously, I don't get it. Times change, you move with it.

 

[KFunk]

Yes, it's socially constructed. But you can't sort of say, "Oh, but cave women didn't shave" and "don't call me an actress, refer to me in the masculine form, please". Wtf? Seriously, I don't get it. Times change, you move with it.

Well yes, times do change. But then it is worth asking why people should move in any given direction. Suppose a woman doesn't want to shave and a man wants to wear skirts and lipstick - why should this be an issue? More to the point, if gender is a fluid thing which permits such variation why are you holding people up to a 'standard'?

 

[bassistx]

Because women have been shaving/waxing/etc for how many centuries?
.....I'm talking about those women who purposely don't act like women for power and "equality".

 

[_dhj_]

Because women have been shaving/waxing/etc for how many centuries?
.....I'm talking about those women who purposely don't act like women for power and "equality".

I think those on the margins extend the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour for the group that they belong. But the evolution of gender constructs is a battlefield. I find it odd that you're complaining about the phenomenon given that the extension of boundaries for women is always in women's interest, but not necessarily in men's interest.

 

[Tulipa]

Because women have been shaving/waxing/etc for how many centuries?
.....I'm talking about those women who purposely don't act like women for power and "equality".

So to be a woman you have to shave? Are there rules about what being a women is? If there aren't then how can one purposely rebel against it?

It's a personal choice, not necessarily a symbol.

 

[bassistx]

I think those on the margins extend the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour for the group that they belong. But the evolution of gender constructs is a battlefield. I find it odd that you're complaining about the phenomenon given that the extension of boundaries for women is always in women's interest, but not necessarily in men's interest.

Acting like a man, or being able to act like a man without being frowned upon (for a straight woman we're talking about here) is.... I can't even find the word. They don't accept themselves and feel that power comes with being male.

Does everyone seem to miss my point or something? Haven't you seen these women?

 

[bassistx]

So to be a woman you have to shave? Are there rules about what being a women is? If there aren't then how can one purposely rebel against it?

It's a personal choice, not necessarily a symbol.

What do you mean by "rules"? Something that comes in the parents mailbox when their daughter is born? These are things that are generally expected of women and I am talking about women who explicity say they don't shave etc. because it's a "feminist" thing. Do you count that as personal choice? More like a cult thing.

 

[Tulipa]

What do you mean by "rules"? Something that comes in the parents mailbox when their daughter is born? These are things that are generally expected of women and I am talking about women who explicity say they don't shave etc. because it's a "feminist" thing. Do you count that as personal choice? More like a cult thing.

You're the one talking about general expections - I just equate them to "rules".

I'll do what I want thank you very much, screw general expectations. I don't know many people who explicitly say they don't shave because it's a feminist thing but I imagine it's probably something they believe to be in line with their beliefs. I'd equate that to wear a cross because it's a Christian thing.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What do you mean by "rules"? Something that comes in the parents mailbox when their daughter is born? These are things that are generally expected of women and I am talking about women who explicity say they don't shave etc. because it's a "feminist" thing. Do you count that as personal choice? More like a cult thing.

We start creating gender identities from when kids are babies, they're treated different, like.

Plus I reckon like most things in life, gender expectations are defined by the great mass of people (they have to be) who are just drones that do what the social norms tell them to

So you can act however you want, it's not illegal to be hairy and braless, but everyone will think you're a freak and there's nothing you can do about it love.

 

[bassistx]

Those freaks think that for men and women to be equal they should do the opposite of what the majority of women do.

This is my rant - I'm talking about women who explicity say it, yes, I am, Sarah. But you wouldn't come across such people because... I don't want to get political, but they're in certain places where you wouldn't hang around. Not to say that I hang out with them lol...

 

[_dhj_]

Acting like a man, or being able to act like a man without being frowned upon (for a straight woman we're talking about here) is.... I can't even find the word. They don't accept themselves and feel that power comes with being male.

Does everyone seem to miss my point or something? Haven't you seen these women?

I guess you can speculate about the motives driving their particular lifestyle but how exactly does their lifestyle impact on yours? In a heterogeneous society some people will always be disgusted and outraged by the actions of others, but it is this type of society which will allow differences and allow individuals to "be".

If "not shaving" is regarded by society as repulsive wouldn't its practice increase your relative standing within it, ceteris paribus?

 

[KFunk]

Because women have been shaving/waxing/etc for how many centuries?
.....I'm talking about those women who purposely don't act like women for power and "equality".

Yes, but note that you refer to those "who purposely don't act like women", i.e. you have once more snuck in a standard of what it means to be of female gender. My questions are relevant because that kind of comment ceases to be meaningful if gender categories are fluid / socially constructed (thus undermining much of what you are trying to say).

On shaving/waxing - these practices are very much culturally contingent. How do these women, of both past and present, who find it culturally acceptable to have unshaved arms fit into your construct of what it is to be a woman? Is it not acceptable to go unshaved even if that is their choice? Where are you getting these standards from and why should people abide?

 

[bassistx]

Check out the women's clothing aisles and tell me what you think.

 

[esquared]

Yeah i'm with you bassistx.

Shaving is not a sign that the fascists have won.

 

[bassistx]

Yeah i'm with you bassistx.

Shaving is not a sign that the fascists have won.

I don't know if you're being serious or not lol but thanks feminist boy for making my point clear

 

[KFunk]

Check out the women's clothing aisles and tell me what you think.

That's a non-answer. Of course it's clear from the media and fashion aisles that shaven armpits are endorsed in popular culture. In other words, it is a trend. Thus I ask: so what? Why can't we promote a counter-attitude which is accepting of deviations from the norm?

Also, your clothing aisle comment has little relevance to different cultures (across space, or time, or both) in which underarm hair is acceptable. Do you condemm their failure to live up to the feminine standard that you hold?

 

[scarybunny]

Women will always be their own harshest critics.