Females

[noob]

QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Sep 24 2007, 06:33 PM) My assumption based on her "not so long ago" comment would be that we're talking 2-300 years ago, presumably European/North American society. What you seem to be referring to is more "ancient" societies. Now, that's not to say that in 1900 all women were completely oppressed, forced into horrible marriages to carry out the husband's will with absolutely no say. But what warita said has a solid backing. It wasn't really until the World Wars, with so many men overseas, that women began making up a significant part of the workforce. Even the 1950's "ideal family" typifies a woman who stays at home, cleaning and cooking and looking after her children.

So in respect to our own culture, I would say warita has a point. And of course, people of the upper class have always been exceptions. There might be a Queen, but that doesn't mean the average women would hold a role within government.
Perhaps I've misread that. I thought it was "Until not so long ago".

However, you are still generalizing the entire world based on limited samples provided to you. If we were to go and accept that comment/theory of yours, then how would we explain the sudden discovery of Radioactivity by Marie Curie? You my friend, are ignoring the significant of famous figures of those who've contributed their lives to science. The only scientist to win two Noble Prizes in two different science fields.


Your last paragraph brings yet another factor to this argument; status. Be it social, educational or anything else. People have different values, and their values depend on their status or importance in society.

 

[chiisai_hana]

QUOTE (noob @ Sep 24 2007, 09:05 PM) You my friend, are ignoring the significant of famous figures of those who've contributed their lives to science
Must be because I slept through science class *yawns*

No, I know it's a generalization - that's why I worded my post that way. I clearly stated that "not all women" fall under that category. And there are exceptions. There will always be exceptions. Although Marie Currie was able to achieve her education, most women at the time wouldn't even consider going to university. When the all-female residence I lived in opened in 1903, it housed on 14 students. They were the entire female population of my campus. Today, females probably make up 2/3 of the population of my campus. Why the drastic difference, if the role of women hasn't changed in the past century?

 

[noob]

QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Sep 24 2007, 07:37 PM) Must be because I slept through science class *yawns*

No, I know it's a generalization - that's why I worded my post that way. I clearly stated that "not all women" fall under that category. And there are exceptions. There will always be exceptions. Although Marie Currie was able to achieve her education, most women at the time wouldn't even consider going to university. When the all-female residence I lived in opened in 1903, it housed on 14 students. They were the entire female population of my campus. Today, females probably make up 2/3 of the population of my campus. Why the drastic difference, if the role of women hasn't changed in the past century?
Are we going in circles right now? Because, that, again related to the actual situation, like I've said, it all depends on their value. If they are un-educated, then they are not as worthy as those who are. Their value gets lowered. Right now, the female portion of society is gaining more respect BECAUSE they're improving their values. *wakes chiisai up* Social Studies ftW...

 

[wittyfox]

QUOTE Why the drastic difference, if the role of women hasn't changed in the past century?
Thats not really proof for dramatic change in roles but could easily also be the pull of the needfulness of college level education to get anywhere today. Keeping in mind as you progress through history fathers quickly become less and less apparent in the household. ( because of divorce, or lack of marriage to begin with etc)
A women could still be in the same role of "care giver" but in order to do that she would now need a job also. Also a new surge of women looking for education could be more of a trend, then a step forward. A trend that says all women have to be educated to be respected. Kinda like the idea all women needed to cover up fully to be a true lady. So pink is the new black and all should go along. Theres still women out their that find education, and female rights a load of crap, which furthers my idea that rights, and equality are trends or just ideals built off of certain womens resentment.

A word on equality, since that term has popped up once or twice in this thread.

Equality, If I understand it correctly, has little to do with a actual demand for a even field . It really is a claim to superiority amongst the strong, wise, intelligent, or fast. With this concept knocking them down is a lot easy and a outlet to focus your depression felt from life. "I am sad because I am oppressed so Oppression must be bad. Those who oppress are worst." I don't think there is anyone in this world that doesn't feel some sort of oppression. In knowing that I don't think looking at oppression as the worst thing to occur in the world is smart. However, the feeling of weakness and depression could drive a person to dislike the oppressor and try, by knocking them down, to feel some sort of control and a break from the depression. I think this the true purpose of equality.
Anyway, The usual idea of stopping one type of superiority is usaully accompanied with the idea of replacing it with another, usaully our own or one we have a connection to. A women doesn't want equality, that would put her back in the place of belittlement and unappreciation. In my opinion she wants a small or large sense of power she feels is taken from a man and placed in her control. To be truly equal is to be truly used and unappreciation like every one else. No holding doors, no rights, no respect, no anything other then that which makes you small and dull. According to some of you a women was closer to this when she was being "oppressed" then she is now. Accomplishments are really no claim to final equality among females, or males actaully, considering to accomplish something to the point the world knows you, you have to be strong, wise, smart, fast basically anything but equal and dull.

 

[chiisai_hana]

QUOTE (noob @ Sep 24 2007, 10:54 PM) Are we going in circles right now?
Probably. Yes. Trying to cram Marx before class, but actually procrastinating, is not working for me.


QUOTE (wittyfox @ Sep 24 2007, 10:55 PM)
Thats not really proof for dramatic change in roles but could easily also be the pull of the needfulness of college level education to get anywhere today.
I didn't mean to imply that it was a drastic change in role, at least not in that sense. But you can't argue that it's not a drastic change in numbers. Though you're right, this increase in enrollment could have many reasons beyond the change of women's roles in society. Though ultimately, something had to change about a women's role for her to require a university degree today. But it's really hard to say, because we're in a constant state of change. While I could site examples from my mother's generation, things have changed enough in the past twenty years that it's not completely relevant anymore.

And I'm going to stop there before I say something really confusing and/or stupid

If this makes no sense, really, just ignore it. I'm going to bed ...

 

[d'observer]

Just got one point to put here:

Equality in worth does not mean the capability of doing the exact same things.

That said, lots of people are thinking that women are considered 'lower' in a society because the women there are not having the same role as men. Though in actuality, that almost didn't represent how a woman/man's worth is viewed in that society.

We're supposed to take the role that best fitting with our capabillity, so going with general flow/common sense, for optimum efficiency, a role was given GENERALLY to a specific person, with quality GENERALLY fitting with the specific task.

Woman----> Childcare, houseworks, cooking? --- Well, generally, or looking at their nature, seems women excels more than men in this field. So it should be understandable if the women should play bigger role than men in this field.

Man-----> Earn money, going to war(LOL), hard-labor --- Generally, nature-wise, men should be better for these jobs, so generally men should play the bigger role in this field more than women.

Okay, so should we just evenly divide those tasks between men and women just for the sake of so called 'equality' even if it'll harm the efficiency of a society? (not that misplacing a role is news to any society...)

It's understandable one would want to accomplish the same things as another. I too have suffer from severe inferiority complex due to inability to do so, a lot in my short life so far. But I guess one way or another we should realised there's another way of being equal in value than being the exact same thing with the other.

-US$ 10,000 in cash
-A diamond worth US$ 10,000

Both worth the same in value, seriously. Did they look the same? NO, seriously.
(In b4 they worth differently according to different person, community, situation etc. etc).

p/s: DO NOT READ.
I said do not read, didn't I?

  Oh well, whatever.
Imaginary situation(I love giving one..)
If should I, a man, get into a brawl fight with a woman, and I win, I think I'd be deemed as a bully, weakling that have no pride what-so-ever. People won't be have a good opinion on me.
And should I lose, I think I'd still be deemed as a weakling, a wuss, lose all my pride as a man and people still won't have a good opinion on me.

Either way, I lose. Injustice....

So, does general opinion on women are truly that bad for them? In the above example, women are somewhat being protected because of that general opinion. Should we erase that boundary by treating men and women with the same opinion? I'd be glad as a man to have the 'injustice' above corrected. :b

 

[mamori]

Read the following please:

My sociology course on Gender Relations is having us conduct a survey of sorts. So please post a response to the questions bellow. Please include your sex (male/female), and age if possible.

1. Do we have a problem with gender inequality in the U.S.?
- If not, why not.
- If so, how and what could we do to solve the problem?

2. What do you think feminism is? What do feminists want? Is feminism a harmful ideology?


3. Can a man be a feminist?


4. Any other thoughts, insights or questions you have about gender in society today?


[Mod's note: Thread merged with the pre-existing thread regarding females.]

 

[iniustus]

1. Do we have a problem with gender inequality in the U.S.?
no, i really dont, people who say that women are inequal too men are just afraid.
this is because they want to stay in control of everything(the downside of testosteron)

2. What do you think feminism is? What do feminists want? Is feminism a harmful ideology?
i think feminism is a way to think for the upcoming generation. boys and girls are getting closer and closer, and with the new generation there are men who look up too women.
feminist want nothing more then equality, therefore it isn't harmfull for anybody but those who look down on other people. because these people won't be liked in the ideology.

3. Can a man be a feminist?
yes he can, i am a male, and i'm trying too give the good example too those who think that women are lower on the food-chain then men, because even if they are different they can, if they want,make a diffence.

4. Any other thoughts, insights or questions you have about gender in society today?

women want nothing more then to be seen as an equel to a man.
because men didn't did this, they went rebeling against them.
it's true that women and men are different but thats the way of nature.

this is want i think

 

[REYOMA]

QUOTE (iniustus @ Sep 30 2007, 01:53 PM) 1. Do we have a problem with gender inequality in the U.S.?
no, i really dont, people who say that women are inequal too men are just afraid.
this is because they want to stay in control of everything(the downside of testosteron)

2. What do you think feminism is? What do feminists want? Is feminism a harmful ideology?
i think feminism is a way to think for the upcoming generation. boys and girls are getting closer and closer, and with the new generation there are men who look up too women.
feminist want nothing more then equality, therefore it isn't harmfull for anybody but those who look down on other people. because these people won't be liked in the ideology.

3. Can a man be a feminist?
yes he can, i am a male, and i'm trying too give the good example too those who think that women are lower on the food-chain then men, because even if they are different they can, if they want,make a diffence.

4. Any other thoughts, insights or questions you have about gender in society today?

women want nothing more then to be seen as an equel to a man.
because men didn't did this, they went rebeling against them.
it's true that women and men are different but thats the way of nature.

this is want i think

I started reading ur post and thought this girl sounds up set and then reading and finding out u a guy

but I do agree and well this fact and will just come out and say it women are stronger than men believe it or not and not only emotionally

"AND YES I'M A GUY TOO, NOT SOME ANGRY CHICK PPL "

 

[sayonara solitia]

hahaha... how come MANY ppl think females arent treated equally ... its like saying i think pears are being treated superior than apples... or something like that ... ... what the point in arguing on some topic that arent even evident in this universe.. i mean SERIOSULY ... there is no such thing .... .. its a load of bull created by some gangsters or hoodlums or norms to plan an attack on males so that we can scab money off females (i.e, prosecute them or sue them or put them in jail) or some weird crap like that . ...

let's face it, although males are, from the science point of view, more intellgient in terms of ACADEMICS (e.g, William James Sidis, Newton - he INVENTED THE CALCULUS and Pascal and Leonardo Davinchi and EINSTEIN and LORD JESUS) ....and achieved high in terms of ECONOMICS (BILL GATES AND DONALD TRUMP, Rockfeller)..we have never (im not a male or a female but the third kind who looks a lot sexier ) insulted females in any way or any kind...i think by saying females arent good as males, FEMALES are trying to VICTIMIZE US or MAYBE they are trying to scab money off us or RIP OFF us so that they can legally put us in jail for not treating females like males... thats my perosnal view.. ....

and again, stop this nonsense ..!!

[Moderator's note: no swearing kthx]

 

[warita200]

I dare to disagree. Females are subject to double standart.

It is undeniable fact, that females earn less than man. It is a fact, that females have a lesser chance to get a job, if they have children.

It is a fact, that when a female has sex the same way some guys have, she is a whore, whereas the guy is just "popular with ladies".

I do not plan to make a full list, these are just examples, that popped into my mind as first. There are obvious inequalities and the less visible, things like predjudices and ideas, that we carry in out heads.

Sayonara solita, I have no idea, what makes you think, that females are equal nowadays and have always been, especially if you look back in the history. If it hasnt been for the feministic movement, females still couldnt sign contracts, visit universities, they still wouldnt have any voting rights and so on and so forth. True, the situation improved greatly and yes, the situation nowadays is bearable. It is something I can live with, no doubt about that.
But just think how much it hurts, when somebody lets you feel that for him you are not as valuable as a man. This doesnt have to be explicit...... but you can feel it sometimes and DARN that hurts. Its like...... how is it my fault, that I was born as female and what exactly is it, that makes me inferior?

So no, the battle is not over as yet, it will be over, when men in general stop regarding women as something inferior.

 

[chiisai_hana]

QUOTE (sayonara solitia @ Oct 13 2007, 08:01 AM) let's face it, although males are, from the science point of view, more intellgient in terms of ACADEMICS (e.g, William James Sidis, Newton - he INVENTED THE CALCULUS and Pascal and Leonardo Davinchi and EINSTEIN and LORD JESUS)
Oh yes. Of course you guys are all better at academics. Especially when you forbid women from entering the universities. I mean, most women, if they got an education only received it until they were about 12, at which point they were only given education about how to run a household and raise children. So clearly all those men who lived centuries ago were smarter, and weren't benefiting from women being shut out of academic education. And let us forget all the women who were at universities at the same time as Einstein in the early 1900's, clearly they weren't smart enough since their research didn't change the world (like the other hundreds of men who weren't as smart as Einstein).

And obviously, that's why there are more women than men enrolled in universities today. Because we're scientifically not smart enough to keep up with men.



Men and women are different. But within those distinctions, we're ALL different. You shouldn't receive a higher pay rate for the same job just because you're male. If the man and woman are equally capable, then they should be paid the same.

 

[waka]

Really though form a biological standpoint Females and Males have very few differences relatively speaking. We're all pretty much the same except for the purpose of reproduction. The two types of reproduction which pretty much everyone know of are Asexual(mitosis/cloning) and sexual reproduction. The reason females and males exist is that if you have two of the species that both survived meaning their adaptions allow them a greater advantage making them the "fittest" then the combination of their genes should produce a favorable offspring. Also when you submit chromosomes from both parents you have crossing over which is pretty much the basis of evolutionary changes. So you have the best of your species combined with rapid evolution. No wonder males + females is a good situation.

If we were to eliminate either of the species then we would become asexual reproducing like a pine tree, making identical clones and because of the great job DNA does in replication this makes evolution slow to respond to dangers. Also if you look at our gender ratios in most animals you'll see 50-50. If a certain gender were better or superior in any way evolution, natural selection, whatever would have tilted heavily in their favor.

Biology-chan logging off!

Isn't there a spell checker for this thing?

 

[noob]

QUOTE (doofus123 @ Oct 13 2007, 02:47 PM) *me points a finger towards the Taliban in Afghanistan.
That's quite ignorant of you. Afghanistan, obviously has a different culture than what you are used to or believe in. Not to mention, you didn't support your so called argument. I need to find Himawari and let her teach you the rules of The Thoughtful Section.

 

[The Cheat]

lets throw a few generalizations out there:
1. women are weaker then men
2. men should always provide for the family

these are statements that many people believe (at least where i'm from)
1. not true i know many women and me stronger than me, and i don't consider myself physically weak.

2. often true that the man provides for his family but it is not mandatory in my opinion.

but this can be a touchy topic for many people, because as we grow up men are taught to be kind, and gentleman like to women. this i believe is where many things begin. because we are taught to be nicer to women the facade that women are weaker and should be treated like breakable dolls comes in. if women are men are to be treated equal the truth is that we are all going to need to be overly nice to everyone or just a huge a-hole...

my problem with some i repeat SOME feminists is that they seem to want the men of today to apologies for the mistreatment their ancestors received. I will never do that, i have done nothing wrong.
i also often find that some feminists want the same salaries (fully within their rights) but they also still want the men to pay for everything, you want me to pay for everything then i need a bigger salary than you.

overall i have no issues with feminists, that is assuming that they only want equality and don't bitch at me for things done in the past, i don't care and ill just hate you for it. I'm all for equality but to me it seems that some feminists want the world to be perfect in every way they want, turning all me into lower class citizens, which goes against the main idea of what they preach, equality.

 

[noob]

QUOTE (doofus123 @ Oct 14 2007, 12:09 AM) That tells me that he is oblivious of the fact that inequality is still out there.
Still out there--- Taliban--- Are we in the same time frame? Because I could've sworn I heard something about "Developed countries" being in Afghanistan not too long ago. Admit it, your example was a terrible example. If I were to make a similar example, I'd say "zomfg racisim still exists! /points @ Hitler in germany." --- See my point? And no doof, I know what your point is and that wasn't what I was picking on, it was your damn example

And Sayonara, you may want to define "we" in here. Also, denying or rather rejecting the existence of an object, rule, law or concept does not necessarily mean it's inexistent. Inequality between sexes, races, ages and colors (I know I know, colors falls under the 'race' category, but I just wanted to highlight it.) has existed in the past, exists in present and will continue to exist in future.

 

[noob]

Doof, you're such a doofus. If you read it carefully, they police had control those areas but they pulled out and will go back in later. kthxbye. ---That still doesn't affect Afghanistan as a whole.

edit: omfg look! nazis are still there, in germany and textbooks! let's take over germany again before they make yet another WW.

 

[noob]

Okay look. They don't control any area. They may terrorize certain areas more frequently than other areas. But that doesn't mean they are controlling that area. Do you really think US, the country that bombs even it's allies when it assumes a certain location is contaminated by the enemy??? No. Thought so. And don't give me the "They control it at night" crap either please.

Going back to the point. Like I said. They're treating women like how they are supposed to be treated in their culture. Doesn't sound fair? Guess not and I guess that's exactly why they've been given so much freedom in the past few years compared to before that. --- IF you really wanted to use a better example you should've pointed towards a country that hasn't been in war for over 40 years like India, where women are, at times, treated as if they were worthless. kthx

Note to chiisai: I'm still on topic- correcting his example regarding -inequality between the two genders, males and females. And somehow that is connected to -females-.

Note to self: That's like what? 4xdime = $.40 now?

 

[sayonara solitia]

PPL<....

it is so funny in my opinion that we are fightng over this topic seeing as im not really into male vs female issue or which gender is superior etc.... (you see, i dont really care whos better as long as i can live happily and watch animes and sleep and be lazy... and earn money and eat good food and go shopping)

i have purposely ... wink wink... contradicted myself, in my other reply that stated woman and men are equal but in fact, there are more ppl throughout history (in terms of academics point of view) like newton, Lebinez, Picaso, da vinchi, einstein, hawkings, william james sidis, Carl Friedrich Gauss , Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Aristotle, Galileo, Plato, ... that influenced the world more than females.... YOU guys should also check the CHILD PRODIGY lists from wikipedia and you will find heck of a lot more males than females. ... ... BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT... it is evident that males are "probably" more INFULUENTIAL in terms of academic's point of view.... i mean... the only scientist who was BIT close to einstien was probably MARIE CURIE .... but thats just ONE person .. ... GENIUSES ARE NOT MADE through EDUCATION but rather, they are born with their superior intellect... what i mean is... thoughout the history there were more males with superior mind then females.... you see... no matter how badly genisues may have been treated through education they are always bound to be famous and so, even if female geniuses may not had the right education, they will be known to the world no matter what.... but guess what.. there are only couple of extremely talented females in the academic world....

WHEN I read some comments about my reply prior to this one ... females were arguing about how they didnt have the right education .. blah ... blah.. blah... they are blaming their limitations based on their EDCUATION ... that is purely blaming their intellectual level based on their conditions... IF U ARE TRUELY TALENTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, U WILL ACHIEVE TO UR MAXIMUM POTENTIAL ...

and the other thing is, WHO CARES IF SOME IDIOTIC, NARROW minded, foolish, arrogant bastard thinks males are superior... i mean, does that limit ur full potential or harm ur existence??? i mean cant u be happy with what you've got nd what u can do??? instead of criticizing this world, u should be happy that u werent born back in the 17th century .... the world right now is good enough... (except maybe for the racism)


" GOOD OR EVIL, IF U ARE TRUE TO UR VALUES UNTIL THE VERY END, FALSEHOOD CANNOT EXIST!"

 

[chiisai_hana]

QUOTE (sayonara solitia @ Oct 16 2007, 11:46 AM) IF U ARE TRUELY TALENTED, NO MATTER WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE, U WILL ACHIEVE TO UR MAXIMUM POTENTIAL ...
Not true. Okay. Say I'm the female equivalent of Mozart. I hear music all the time, there are songs everywhere ... but I've never seen a musical instrument. I've never learned how to read music, play an instrument, vocal training ... all I can do is work manual labour day in and day out to try and get by in life. How am I suppose to achieve my maximum potential? I can barely afford the clothes on my back, let alone the time and basic equipment to compose or play music. No one will ever know who I am.

Even Mozart came from a semi-privileged family. His father was a teacher, not to mention a musician, and so he had access to learning. If Mozart had been born to a couple of the lower classes, he might have spent his childhood and adult life working to make money for the family's daily needs. Mozart could have been untapped talent, unheard of by the world.

This, of course, brings up another issue of social conditions and access to education. But if Shakespeare hadn't been educated, how could he write plays? How could any of these men communicate ideas, if they didn't have the tools of communication. The definition of "education" might change from century to century, but all of them probably received some training which allowed them to express opinions and create their works.

I think women being shut out of education played a role in the lack of popular female thinkers and artists. In many societies, women were expected and encouraged to obey their husbands/fathers/brothers, not to think for themselves about "mens issues", such as politics. If you did a study specifically about women in history, I know you would find many examples of women whom we still know of today, going back to ancient Rome. But their role and impact is not considered as great.