Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
More Superficial: Men or Women?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Sigh, don't nitpick, you know full well I'm generalizing so don't be a tosspot and go OHNOEZ YOU SAID ALL WOMEN AHHOMGGGGG YOU DISCREDIT EVERYONE!! Why does nobody on the internet understand that Generalization does not equal the insult of the individual? Next.
Next? Despite your four lines of paragraph, you don't actually answer it. Well done, you have potential to give a politicians answer. :rolleyes:It's a factor, yes, I agree with that, but there are also factors which I've mentioned in previous posts which I can't be bothered sorting through all the rest of everyone else's posts to find. It's been covered.
Ok. Lets break this down a bit. The four categories listed were art, literature, philosophy and science. You listed a lack of competitiveness as being the reason why women haven't succeeded as well as men. The educations required to excel in these areas are all available to women, and in fact, statistics show that women are very capable of getting the top scores in their classes for university qualifications. So it can't be their education thats the problem.
Now all of these are categories of personal working habits. Art both practice and theory aren't particularly team employments, where you need to compete directly with other people to succeed. Nor is Literature which is based on the work you do yourself, and can sell to a publisher. Philosophy? Again same with Literature. And science? Has a team element, and yet it comes down to personal research, and drive.
In all four categories, competition isn't particularly a high point. Sure there is some. But in the actual pursuit of projects, people can and do work alone.
So your competitiveness angle doesn't really work.
Perhaps women are just less ambitious to succeed in these categories.To a degree, yes, but just because evolution does not control us doesn't mean it hasn't still left its imprint. Also been covered.
Because it doesn't control, doesn't mean it hasn't left its imprint? And thats your excuse? haha... Thats ridiculous. Really, read that single sentence out loud to yourself, and you'll understand what I mean. Come on.
Well, actually, there is-- it's not to say they dislike stability, it's just men were the ones to go out risking their lives to provide for the family while the woman would require stability and safety in order to raise this family. See previous.
Prove it. Really. prove that evolution directs men to be less desirable of stability than women. If anything it would make us more desiring of it, since we're the ones that stand to lose our lives defending it.Women tend to be the more compassionate of genders.
Again, another stereotype from the past. Where is its relevance in modern times, since there are thousands of men who work in humanitarian, charity, medical sectors...?They are hardwired to sort out differences in their communities and families and be compassionate to individuals--
haha... and that wouldn't have anything to do with the traditional setting of having a woman being the housewife, and free to settle these differences?it isn't really in a woman's nature to want to get into the act of war, or at least no woman I've ever talked to, whereas men have seen fighting as a way to sort out differences for eons. Again, primal, and not in effect today, but it still left its imprint. There would be war but I'd reckon there would have been a lot less, women tend to want to avoid that sort of thing.
A womans nature? Well, we don't really know, do we? They've never really placed themselves in a position where they have to direct and fight a war...Agreed, women vs. women is brutal but it's usually psychological warfare, it's rare that it gets physical (unless they're particularly scumbaggy).
Its rare in modern times that hand-to-hand fighting occurs. Nowadays its bombers, tanks, missiles, rifles, etc. There's no need to get physical. Woman can be as nasty as they want to be.Article kind of covers the first bit. Never said there was anything shameful about being a housewife, hell I'd be one if I could actually bear the thought of having children. Not sure what you're trying to get at with your last bit, I've not said anything to the contrary.
Actually the article makes no reference to women in the home. In fact, it makes no reference as to the social backgrounds of the participants or their education.See first bit and previous article.
Ahh.. this article. Its an interesting one but right from the beginning I get the sense that they started with a question, wanted a certain answer, and then did the "experiment"..
e.g. Right in the middle without any reason for putting it in the article has "At one point, Niederle cited a study indicating that just 2.5% of the five highest paid executives in a sample of large firms were women." (no reference of this study, or where we could confirm it)
Kinda gives a rather serious pointer as to how she wanted the results interpreted.
"But when the groups moved on to task 3, just 35% of the women chose a tournament setting compared with 73% of the men. Even the best-performing women were more reluctant to enter the tournament than the lowest-performing men."
The article makes no reference to the differences in scores amongst the women, or whether more women would have been interested in competing against just women. Perhaps a lack of desire to compete with men exists... Although I would love to know the backgrounds of the people involved. I wonder what it means that 23% of the men involved didn't choose the tournament setting... hmmm... But the researcher isn't particularly interested in that.
But the things I find really interesting is
"She plans to expand her own research into the area of affirmative action: For example, in an experiment such as hers, would women make different choices if there was a reward for being the highest-performing female in a group?"
Now... Women have been asking for equality, and have essentially gotten it. What this "study" basically says is that women don't want equality, they want men to step aside and to give them rewards simply because they're female.. Goodbye Equality.. The reality wasn't quite what they were expecting...0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Next? Despite your four lines of paragraph, you don't actually answer it. Well done, you have potential to give a politicians answer. :rolleyes:
Except I've answered it a million times previously, I don't feel the need to reiterate simply because you can't be bothered reading back.Ok. Lets break this down a bit. The four categories listed were art, literature, philosophy and science. You listed a lack of competitiveness as being the reason why women haven't succeeded as well as men. The educations required to excel in these areas are all available to women, and in fact, statistics show that women are very capable of getting the top scores in their classes for university qualifications. So it can't be their education thats the problem.
No, I didn't list it as THE reason. Again, GO BACK AND READ. It's useless me responding if I just have to repeat a million things I've already said.In all four categories, competition isn't particularly a high point. Sure there is some. But in the actual pursuit of projects, people can and do work alone.
So your competitiveness angle doesn't really work.
Also, please note I wasn't even the one to bring up those categories, someone else was. And again, competition was definitely not my only angle. Reread from about 2 pages back on.Because it doesn't control, doesn't mean it hasn't left its imprint? And thats your excuse? haha... Thats ridiculous. Really, read that single sentence out loud to yourself, and you'll understand what I mean. Come on.
Uh. Here, let's see.
WW2 doesn't control us, but it has left its imprint.
Religion doesn't (completely) control us, but it has left its imprint.
Factors that evolution dictated millennia ago obviously do not control our day-to-day lives, but it has left its imprint on how we interact with society.
Do we not learn from history? Does history not make an impact?
Hardly ridiculous at all, perhaps actually try reading comprehension.Prove it. Really. prove that evolution directs men to be less desirable of stability than women. If anything it would make us more desiring of it, since we're the ones that stand to lose our lives defending it.
"desirable of stability" makes no grammatical sense, by the way. Think you mean "desiring of." I never said that men desire it less. I'm saying men are willing to risk it more often. They had to via evolution-- they were the ones securing their hierarchical positions, hunting, fighting off enemy camps, whatever-- if you wanna get down to the primal part of it. Women prize stability and safety because they were needed to care for the young while men, the stronger sex, were off doing the defending and hunting and the like. That's kind of common sense...Again, another stereotype from the past. Where is its relevance in modern times, since there are thousands of men who work in humanitarian, charity, medical sectors...?
Not a stereotype. What do you see more often if someone has a problem with their life-- do they turn to a female or male friend? I find my male friends tend to turn to their female friends during times of crisis because women tend to be more compassionate. I ask them why and they say it's because they can't talk to their male friends about "stuff like that." It's easier to talk to women, as a rule.haha... and that wouldn't have anything to do with the traditional setting of having a woman being the housewife, and free to settle these differences?
What? Of course it would. When have I said differently? Wtf?!A womans nature? Well, we don't really know, do we? They've never really placed themselves in a position where they have to direct and fight a war...
Think on a microcosm.Its rare in modern times that hand-to-hand fighting occurs. Nowadays its bombers, tanks, missiles, rifles, etc. There's no need to get physical. Woman can be as nasty as they want to be.
...Again.. that's what I just said.. Women participate in psychological warfare. But the drunken fights after boozing-- mostly men.Actually the article makes no reference to women in the home. In fact, it makes no reference as to the social backgrounds of the participants or their education.
I never said it did make reference to women in the home, it made reference to the level's of women's competitiveness.
I said I never said there was anything shameful about being a housewife, because you insinuated that I had.Ahh.. this article. Its an interesting one but right from the beginning I get the sense that they started with a question, wanted a certain answer, and then did the "experiment"..
e.g. Right in the middle without any reason for putting it in the article has "At one point, Niederle cited a study indicating that just 2.5% of the five highest paid executives in a sample of large firms were women." (no reference of this study, or where we could confirm it)
Kinda gives a rather serious pointer as to how she wanted the results interpreted.
"But when the groups moved on to task 3, just 35% of the women chose a tournament setting compared with 73% of the men. Even the best-performing women were more reluctant to enter the tournament than the lowest-performing men."
The article makes no reference to the differences in scores amongst the women, or whether more women would have been interested in competing against just women. Perhaps a lack of desire to compete with men exists... Although I would love to know the backgrounds of the people involved.
But the things I find really interesting is
"She plans to expand her own research into the area of affirmative action: For example, in an experiment such as hers, would women make different choices if there was a reward for being the highest-performing female in a group?"
Now... Women have been asking for equality, and have essentially gotten it. What this "study" basically says is that women don't want equality, they want men to step aside and to give them rewards simply because they're female..
That study said nothing about women wanting men to step aside and give them rewards. And why would it have given reference to just women? If we're talking equality and gender differences we're referencing equality and gender differences, not same sex.
Seriously. Read my previous posts, there's really no point in me responding to any of this since it's already been covered about a thousand times.
If you're going to be lazy about reading my posts I'm going to be lazy about responding to yours, fyi. I'm really not that interested in a gigantic debate.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Except I've answered it a million times previously, I don't feel the need to reiterate simply because you can't be bothered reading back.
You're previous posts fail to address the point properly. Look. If you're really not up to answering, just say so. :rolleyes:No, I didn't list it as THE reason. Again, GO BACK AND READ. It's useless me responding if I just have to repeat a million things I've already said.
No, You stated two points. Lesser physical prowess, and competitiveness. Both of which I have addressed. Its you're answer of what I have said, that I am waiting for.Also, please note I wasn't even the one to bring up those categories, someone else was. And again, competition was definitely not my only angle. Reread from about 2 pages back on.
But you addressed those categories all the same. I figure you understand what i have been saying, and want to avoid agreeing at all costs.Uh. Here, let's see.
WW2 doesn't control us, but it has left its imprint.
Religion doesn't (completely) control us, but it has left its imprint.
Factors that evolution dictated millennia ago obviously do not control our day-to-day lives, but it has left its imprint on how we interact with society.
Do we not learn from history? Does history not make an impact?
Hardly ridiculous at all, perhaps actually try reading comprehension.
Let me remind you want I said, since you've obviously forgotten:
"All of which are based on the individual, not the sex of the person. "
Now, perhaps you can come back to the actual subject?"desirable of stability" makes no grammatical sense, by the way. Think you mean "desiring of." I never said that men desire it less.
You stated "Goes back through evolution, really, it's in the nature of men to compete and in the nature of women to maintain stability. "
Which I replied "There is nothing in our evolution to direct men to be any less desirable of stability than women."
Which you disagreed with. And there's no need to fix my grammar, since I haven't been fixing your misspellings.I'm saying men are willing to risk it more often. They had to via evolution-- they were the ones securing their hierarchical positions, hunting, fighting off enemy camps, whatever-- if you wanna get down to the primal part of it. Women prize stability and safety because they were needed to care for the young while men, the stronger sex, were off doing the defending and hunting and the like. That's kind of common sense...
And I agree with you. In part. Its not wired into our genetic makeup to be this way, but rather the way that our societies evolved. Considering you started talking about lack of equality for women, you go about it in a strange manner.
Perhaps I've got the wrong image of you. Perhaps you do understand that women placed themselves in their own niche in society, and kept themselves there. It was always up to women to bring themselves out of that niche, and blaming men is just a way of passing off women's past lack of desire to do so.Not a stereotype. What do you see more often if someone has a problem with their life-- do they turn to a female or male friend? I find my male friends tend to turn to their female friends during times of crisis because women tend to be more compassionate. I ask them why and they say it's because they can't talk to their male friends about "stuff like that." It's easier to talk to women, as a rule.
Really? Whereas I find that female friends talk to males about their problems. As for males, they'll talk to anyone that will listen..What? Of course it would. When have I said differently? Wtf?!
Because you throw out stereotypes without looking at the reasons behind them, and the fact that many of these stereotypes aren't as applicable in the modern world. The simple fact is that in history the majority of women stayed to become housewives, whereas there is a much larger percentage of women nowadays working outside of the home environment. Get my drift?Think on a microcosm.
No point. lets talk facts instead. You're making a statement about something that hasn't happened in comparison to something that has. i.e. a comparison between men and women regarding running a country & warfare. Women haven't had a war to prosecute so there's no point stating that there would be less wars if men were more like women... You have no foundation to argue it with...Again.. that's what I just said.. Women participate in psychological warfare. But the drunken fights after boozing-- mostly men.
Again, modern warfare is what it is. Modern warfare gives women the ability to step away from direct physical confrontation.. So they could easily prosecute a war.
As for the drunken fights, there are a growing number of women who participate in drunken fights once the nightclubs & bars close. I'd suggest taking a look at the numbers of women involved in fights at night in the Major UK cities. You might be suprised.I never said it did make reference to women in the home, it made reference to the level's of women's competitiveness.
You said "Article kind of covers the first bit." which was in response to a quote of mine stating "The only reason that the gender differences in competitiveness is larger is because so many women have chosen not to compete in activities outside of the home.".
You really need to reread what you're writing.I said I never said there was anything shameful about being a housewife, because you insinuated that I had.
Nope. I put that in because a common theme with women talking about equality is that women were and are forced into working in the home. I never said that you had made that point.That study said nothing about women wanting men to step aside and give them rewards.
haha... I guess you can't be bothered to read it. Here it is again ""She plans to expand her own research into the area of affirmative action: For example, in an experiment such as hers, would women make different choices if there was a reward for being the highest-performing female in a group?"
So if women don't want to compete with men, then she's looking for a reason to allow women to work and do just that... Seems obvious to me.And why would it have given reference to just women? If we're talking equality and gender differences we're referencing equality and gender differences, not same sex.
All the results of this "study" are geared towards women. Its not a study aimed at producing results or determinations for both sexes. Its out to support a mandate.Seriously. Read my previous posts, there's really no point in me responding to any of this since it's already been covered about a thousand times.
Seriously. If you can't be bothered to actually answer responses to your own opinions, why bother post them at all?If you're going to be lazy about reading my posts I'm going to be lazy about responding to yours, fyi. I'm really not that interested in a gigantic debate.
ROFL. I've answered each and every one of your points, whereas you tell me its answered before (which it isn't), partially answer or skip over it entirely.
You're just not really interested in acknowledging reality. Or what equality really is. Or even the part that women should be playing in it.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'm not just talking about the posts I've made to you. Read the other posts I've made to other people. They have definitely addressed a lot more than physical prowess and competition. You've not brought up anything worth addressing since it's already been covered by other people.
I've not made any attempt to be subtle that I don't agree with what either you or they have said. Which is why we've been having this conversation... :rolleyes:And what misspellings are those? Grammar tends to make less sense than misspellings anyway.
You can't be bothered to argue about the topic but you'll focus on Grammar and misspelling? Haha.. How bloody Superficial.Of course I disagreed with it, and I made my case last post, which, interestingly enough, you don't seem to be refuting.
OMG. Its useless.Women haven't necessarily placed themselves in their own niche. It's a construct of how society was before it was really a choice. At the start of humanity, there wasn't much of a choice-- men were bigger, stronger, they did the hunting, women were smaller, weaker, they did the looking after. No choice, just couldn't survive any other way. Grand.
Do you see a trend with the way you make your points?Then society grew and evolved and changed but that way was set as a mentality. This mentality stuck with us through the centuries and most religions and ways of life were founded on it as different societies caught up to each other. Religion dominated the world, for the most part, and thus dictated family life.
Of course religion was created in the image of the society of the people that worshipped it. Western religion was a business to get as many converts as possible, and they originally made it as appealing as possible. Hence the absorbing of "pagan" beliefs to make the transition of pagans to real followers easier and quicker. So of course religion was going to promote a continued existence of that society. You're blaming religion for not changing when it was mostly a reflection of its worshippers.It's only incredibly recently that things have started to change from that. Of course individual women have been able to overcome obstacles but a lot of other women weren't so lucky, were killed, and subsequently made examples of. A lot of it had to do with fear. A lot of it still does have to do with fear in some parts of the world.
All of it was to do with fear.. fear of the unknown. Changing their society to something none of them had ever experienced before. Women didn't know what the world they were seeking to change would turn into. Would they be able to compete in a workplace? Would they be able to earn enough money to live? Would men resist the idea? How would they interact with men once things changed? Would they have to leave the security of their socially acceptable lives? Would they retain their privileges?
That is why there were so few women that stepped outside of these boundaries of society. Because mainstream women were too afraid of the possible consequences of seeking equality.You can argue about a woman's lack of desire til the cows come home but it won't make a difference on reality. Study history and study society and see how women were persecuted.
I know. History shows very well that there was no solid movement for complete equality with enough support to change the system until the last 100 years... While history shows small groupings of women seeking to live outside of the social norms, for the most part, women did not. Wishing it was otherwise doesn't change anything. You can pass off the responsibility to men till time ends. But you really should acknowledge the past, otherwise women will never move on with themselves. They're too busy focusing on the past, they've forgotten that it was equality they originally wanted..Men went through the same trials, sure, but for incredibly different reasons, and it can't really be used as an argument.
Oh My God, you're a sexist! That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.These things take time. There is still monumental pressure on women to be housewives and homemakers, from parents, friends, schools (all of this I've covered in previous posts in this thread, by the way), discouraging them from getting into careers for fear of pigeonholing themselves out of being able to start and raise a family effectively. It's not so black and white as "women just didn't have the drive or desire."
Why not? Men face pressures to conform just as much as women. Depending on our backgrounds there are huge pressures to take jobs in certain sectors. That pressure comes from family, society, and friends alike.
This is just more of the same women are victims lark. Women have the ability to do whatever they want to do just like men. If they don't then its most likely another woman forcing the limitation on them.
You wouldn't believe the amount of pressure I received from parents, society, and friends to meet a western girl and marry. Its amazing the amount of stupid reasons people could find when they found out I was getting married to a chinese girl. Most of that criticism came from women. How could I marry a girl that wasn't Irish, nevermind not a Catholic? :rolleyes:It's just what I've experienced. My male friends come to me to talk to and those are the reasons they've given for not talking to other males.
Fine, and I disagree since I've experienced otherwise.I think you're greatly misunderstanding a lot of what I'm trying to get across here. A lot of history is applicable in the modern world, you for some reason just don't want to see cause and causation.
I have absolutely no problem with history. Why should I? It won't matter to history, and won't change a thing.
The problem I have is that you use stereotypes which were created generations ago, and society has changed in the meantime.Of course a larger percentage of women nowadays are working outside of the home, they are able to now whereas they didn't have the opportunity previously, but it's still a much smaller percentage to men due to residual ancient societal pressures that are, unfortunately, still in place.
Time to cut to the quick now. They are able to now whereas they didn't have the opportunity previously? Was there a law which stated that women had to work in the home? Were women killed if they chose to work outside the home? Err.. no. Women have always had other choices other than staying in the home. They just chose that particular life. That choice is still available to them, and more women are now choosing to pick a different life.Educated guess.
Educated on what? Since no previous occurrence has happened, then it can't be based in fact, which therefore means its completely theoretical... Of no substance. Not based in Reality.Sure, now, but I still think wars would be handled drastically differently and a lot less gung-ho.
And since honor is considered a very male thing, then the wars could easily be more efficient and terrible. But in any case, its still something that has no current basis in reality.I know that, I even said it myself a few posts back, insinuating that it's generally the more scumbaggy type though. But you're focusing on the small details instead of the bigger picture of what I'm trying to say.
You raised it and now don't want to acknowledge that there are a rather large number of women in this world who have partaken in a few drunken fights? I know a few Irish girls who have had their own pissed adventures and they were none to gentle with their opponents (men and female).I was referencing the article to demonstrate that women do, in fact, participate in activities outside the home, and that when they do it's nothing to do with how many women compete in activities outside of the home (since the sample size for men and women are the same), it's an alternate factor.
What?!! That makes absolutely no sense.I think you really need to reread what I'm writing, it seems.
Lord knows I'm trying. :rolleyes:And again, I'll state: there was nothing in THE STUDY THAT I LINKED about rewards. She is referencing research she plans to do but has not yet done, aka NOT THE STUDY THAT I LINKED. So obviously you can't be bothered to read it.
You posted the article. I took the paragraph from your article. Directly from your article.....
Again, you refuse to actually read anything I've said or attempt to understand it, instead resorting to childish insults rather than reading comprehension.
Am I really? I think my response to your last post has kinda reinforced what i said.0 -
Because you can't refute it?Deleted User wrote: »OMG. Its useless.
Again attacking useless things with no explanation. You highlight the word "choice" but to what end, other than being combative?Do you see a trend with the way you make your points?Of course religion was created in the image of the society of the people that worshipped it. Western religion was a business to get as many converts as possible, and they originally made it as appealing as possible. Hence the absorbing of "pagan" beliefs to make the transition of pagans to real followers easier and quicker. So of course religion was going to promote a continued existence of that society. You're blaming religion for not changing when it was mostly a reflection of its worshippers.
You're not telling me anything new here. I'm fully aware of all of this. I'm not blaming religion for anything, I'm saying it's a continuation. You're seeing what you want to see here and being combative for the sake of it.
Duh.All of it was to do with fear.. fear of the unknown. Changing their society to something none of them had ever experienced before. Women didn't know what the world they were seeking to change would turn into. Would they be able to compete in a workplace? Would they be able to earn enough money to live? Would men resist the idea? How would they interact with men once things changed? Would they have to leave the security of their socially acceptable lives? Would they retain their privileges?
That is why there were so few women that stepped outside of these boundaries of society. Because mainstream women were too afraid of the possible consequences of seeking equality.
Forget history and you're doomed to repeat it.I know. History shows very well that there was no solid movement for complete equality with enough support to change the system until the last 100 years... While history shows small groupings of women seeking to live outside of the social norms, for the most part, women did not. Wishing it was otherwise doesn't change anything. You can pass off the responsibility to men till time ends. But you really should acknowledge the past, otherwise women will never move on with themselves. They're too busy focusing on the past, they've forgotten that it was equality they originally wanted..
We're not focusing on the past, we're recognizing the impact it made on the world we currently live in.
Of course women didn't seek to live outside of the social norms, every time they bloody well did they ended up being considered a witch or something equally ridiculous. A lot of this goes back to religion-- which, as you said, is a man-made construct-- even other women were persecuting any women who dared defy men, because defying man was defying God, and who the hell wanted to defy God then? Nobody wanted to burn in hell, and it was all written in the bible, clear as day, that women should obey their husbands and submit, was it not? And this isn't just Christianity, this is religions worldwide. I don't believe in god nor do I follow any religion for a second but I would be incredibly naïve to question its impact on history.
Now that religion has lost a lot of its strength-- in the last 100 years or so, interesting!-- you'll notice a lot of people's rights are changing. It's due to reason and information, not so much to do with "oh well women never chose to in the past!"
Again, there's more to it than choice, mate.
Oh My God, you're an idiot!Oh My God, you're a sexist! That's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard.
It's naught to do with sexism, kid. It's to do with the fact that pressures against women and pressures against men are COMPLETELY different territory. That's like saying (this is an awfully touchy example but bear with me) that because the Nazis and the Jews both died in the war, they're on the same turf-- they're not. They died under COMPLETELY different circumstances-- the Nazis free, and the Jews clearly not-- and thus the two deaths really can't be compared at all. Think about what you're saying, it's nothing to do with sexism. It's to do with the manner of persecution. Men have always been, as an entire gender, free. Women have not.
You are missing the point. By miles.Why not? Men face pressures to conform just as much as women. Depending on our backgrounds there are huge pressures to take jobs in certain sectors. That pressure comes from family, society, and friends alike.
This is just more of the same women are victims lark. Women have the ability to do whatever they want to do just like men. If they don't then its most likely another woman forcing the limitation on them.
You wouldn't believe the amount of pressure I received from parents, society, and friends to meet a western girl and marry. Its amazing the amount of stupid reasons people could find when they found out I was getting married to a chinese girl. Most of that criticism came from women. How could I marry a girl that wasn't Irish, nevermind not a Catholic? :rolleyes:
Men have always had the opportunities, men have always had the choices, men have always had the array. Men could be doctors or pilots or authors or scientists. Men were MEANT and PRESSURED to get great jobs and careers. You're on the topic of jobs and careers. This is like the previous topic. It is not the same thing. We are talking about women who are being pressured AGAINST jobs and careers. If you want to argue that men are pressured to not be househusbands or whatever, fine, but that's not the argument right here, right now, that's a different ballgame. Keep on topic. You wanna talk careers, we'll talk careers. I'm not going to talk about anything else.I have absolutely no problem with history. Why should I? It won't matter to history, and won't change a thing.
History won't matter to history? What?
And yes, it will change things. We learn from history. By learning we change. Kind of simple.
It has and it hasn't. People aren't so quick to let go of traditions or the ways they were raised. It is being phased out, yes, but that definitely doesn't mean it's gone-- as you said, you had pressure to marry a western girl, that's a historical, traditional, religious residual piece of history that's being forced on you, it obviously isn't all gone yet now is it? It still has impact on people today, regardless of you as an individual. You are not everyone.The problem I have is that you use stereotypes which were created generations ago, and society has changed in the meantime.Time to cut to the quick now. They are able to now whereas they didn't have the opportunity previously? Was there a law which stated that women had to work in the home? Were women killed if they chose to work outside the home? Err.. no. Women have always had other choices other than staying in the home. They just chose that particular life. That choice is still available to them, and more women are now choosing to pick a different life.
No, no, no, NO. You are NOT. GETTING. IT.
Yes, women were killed if they chose to go against the grain! Yes, they were prosecuted, ridiculed! Look at history! Look at the Middle East RIGHT NOW! The Middle East right now is a stunning example of how women all over the world were treated hundreds of years ago. Stuff like that leaves an impact, for god's sake. Don't you dare, don't you DARE go up to a woman in that situation and say "oh but you could chooooooooooooooose not to live like this! You could choooooooooooose to do something else with your life!" Uh, no, they can't. Lots of women try to and lots of women die for it. It's not so simple.Educated on what? Since no previous occurrence has happened, then it can't be based in fact, which therefore means its completely theoretical... Of no substance. Not based in Reality.
Guess since the Big Bang theory or string theory hasn't been proven and is greatly theoretical means it has no substance, base in reality, and must be completely dismissed... yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:
People can very easily make educated guesses on things that have not happened based on the evidence they have perceived in things that have happened.And since honor is considered a very male thing, then the wars could easily be more efficient and terrible. But in any case, its still something that has no current basis in reality.
Since when is honour a very male thing? Now who's being sexist?You raised it and now don't want to acknowledge that there are a rather large number of women in this world who have partaken in a few drunken fights? I know a few Irish girls who have had their own pissed adventures and they were none to gentle with their opponents (men and female).
When did I ever say I didn't want to acknowledge that there are a rather large number of women in this world who have partaken in a few drunken fights? Doesn't change the fact that the large majority is still men, despite equal amounts of men and women getting roughly the same level of drunk while out on the piss each weekend.
Now you know how I feel trying to understand how on earth you're getting any of what you're getting out of my posts, you absolutely must pull it out of your ass because you haven't understood a single thing I've said yet, even though it's incredibly simple.What?!! That makes absolutely no sense.You posted the article. I took the paragraph from your article. Directly from your article.....
Did you READ THE ARTICLE? Obviously not. The thing you posted is FOOTNOTE saying what the author is PLANNING to research in the FUTURE, aka it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE I POSTED.
Dear lord. :rolleyes:0 -
Because you can't refute it?
No. That's not quite like it. But that's obviously lost on you.You're not telling me anything new here. I'm fully aware of all of this. I'm not blaming religion for anything, I'm saying it's a continuation. You're seeing what you want to see here and being combative for the sake of it.
You're fully aware and yet you posted that?Duh.
And yet you continue to miss the point..Forget history and you're doomed to repeat it.
We're not focusing on the past, we're recognizing the impact it made on the world we currently live in.
The Germans (both sexes) caused two world wars simply because they chose to forget their history. They focused on their shame in being beaten and down trodden, and killed millions as a result.
You don't think the manner in which women pass off their own responsibilities in living in this world isn't focused on the past? Regardless of the changes in law establishing female equality forevermore, the male species are still labeled with the same accusations. The feminist movement achieved its goals. Its gotten equality. Actually its gotten more than that. So why all this focus on blaming men? Because they're still afraid to deal all the aspects of being more than equal than men.... :rolleyes:Of course women didn't seek to live outside of the social norms, every time they bloody well did they ended up being considered a witch or something equally ridiculous.
Every time? Actually no, since the earlier posts of this thread mentioned a few women who had made it. And there's quite a few women over the centuries that have gotten away with it wonderfully. So your generalization is flawed.A lot of this goes back to religion-- which, as you said, is a man-made construct-- even other women were persecuting any women who dared defy men, because defying man was defying God, and who the hell wanted to defy God then? Nobody wanted to burn in hell, and it was all written in the bible, clear as day, that women should obey their husbands and submit, was it not? And this isn't just Christianity, this is religions worldwide. I don't believe in god nor do I follow any religion for a second but I would be incredibly naïve to question its impact on history.
Even? never mind...
Lets take the Catholic Church for example. Its been around quite some time. And like any political structure, it changed its policies over the years, and just as with every nation it reached a stage where traditional was more interesting than new ideas. How long did that take? You're covering the whole history of the Catholic Church in one generalization, never mind popping in the other religions as well.Now that religion has lost a lot of its strength-- in the last 100 years or so, interesting!-- you'll notice a lot of people's rights are changing. It's due to reason and information, not so much to do with "oh well women never chose to in the past!"
Actually it does since we've established that religion reflects its worshippers. There were millions of female worshippers in the Catholic Church. I've no idea if there are more male or female worshippers, but i suspect its female. Could it be that the female worshippers didn't want equality all that much for themselves?Again, there's more to it than choice, mate.
Not really. There were just too many more people choosing to have things stay the way they were, than the number of people supporting that very change...Oh My God, you're an idiot!
Thank you. I didn't want to say it, but I have been thinking that about you quite a few times already. I guess you're right men thinking like women would make a better world.. :rolleyes:It's naught to do with sexism, kid.
Kid? Kid? First you're a sexism and now you're an Ageist? Where does it all stop?It's to do with the fact that pressures against women and pressures against men are COMPLETELY different territory.
Have you read "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus"? Very interesting read, you might like it. lol.That's like saying (this is an awfully touchy example but bear with me) that because the Nazis and the Jews both died in the war, they're on the same turf-- they're not. They died under COMPLETELY different circumstances-- the Nazis free, and the Jews clearly not-- and thus the two deaths really can't be compared at all. Think about what you're saying, it's nothing to do with sexism. It's to do with the manner of persecution.
You talk about equality, and then compare the persecution of the Jews by the Nazi's? You're not blond are you? Now that is a Generalization.. and not a very favorable one.Men have always been, as an entire gender, free. Women have not.
You are missing the point. By miles.
Really. So what of the example by someone else about the feathers that men in Britain would receive from loved ones because they did not go to war? To be ostracised from their society, simply because they did want to kill people or being killed? There's a rather good movie about actually.
Men were bound by the same constraints as women by the structure of the society. Men were bound by concepts of duty, honor, loyalty and then sent out in their millions to die. That's a rather large point to ignore.Men have always had the opportunities, men have always had the choices, men have always had the array. Men could be doctors or pilots or authors or scientists. Men were MEANT and PRESSURED to get great jobs and careers. You're on the topic of jobs and careers. This is like the previous topic. It is not the same thing. We are talking about women who are being pressured AGAINST jobs and careers.
No idea what array means. As for the rest.. You just said that men were not pressured, that we were always free. What you describe above is a rather good example of many of the area where we are indeed pressured.
You talk about the status quo of men in the past in such a dismissive wave. While the women were in the home stuck in a certain safe environment, men were pressured to provide everything. Food on the table, rent, clothes, luxaries, etc. Where was the money to pay for life coming from, while all the women were being forced into these norms? Who did the protecting?
So while men worked depending on their lifestyles, women were in the home. Right. Such a harsh existence. I can see why there was a mass rush of women to get their equal rights in society.
And what I have said has perfectly good reference to working and employment.If you want to argue that men are pressured to not be househusbands or whatever, fine, but that's not the argument right here, right now, that's a different ballgame. Keep on topic. You wanna talk careers, we'll talk careers. I'm not going to talk about anything else.
haha... This is exactly the reason why it took so long for equality to start happening... You take a side. Men versus women. Its not about equality for both sexes. Its about equality for women. Don't you think that if women had asked for equality for men as well, it would have happened a lot quicker?History won't matter to history? What?
Its lost on you. Move on.And yes, it will change things. We learn from history. By learning we change. Kind of simple.
Ahh history.. You know that there are differences in how different countries record and interpret history? Now if whole countries are doing this, I wonder how accurate the history you're focusing on, really is.It has and it hasn't. People aren't so quick to let go of traditions or the ways they were raised. It is being phased out, yes, but that definitely doesn't mean it's gone-- as you said, you had pressure to marry a western girl, that's a historical, traditional, religious residual piece of history that's being forced on you, it obviously isn't all gone yet now is it? It still has impact on people today, regardless of you as an individual. You are not everyone.
Actually considering you're generalising again, I am everyone. But with generalisations there are no individuals.
Which still doesn't change that stereotypes aren't particularly accurate. There's no credible scientific proof that shows that blonds are stupider than other women. Your stereotypes are just as bad.No, no, no, NO. You are NOT. GETTING. IT.
Not right now, no. I'm very faithful to my fiancee.Yes, women were killed if they chose to go against the grain! Yes, they were prosecuted, ridiculed! Look at history!
Yes, history shows how some women were punished or killed for stepping against societies values, and seek something different. The majority of women did not step against the "laws" of society. Look at history.Look at the Middle East RIGHT NOW! The Middle East right now is a stunning example of how women all over the world were treated hundreds of years ago.
Yup. Thousands of years ago. Yup. Thousands of years ago. How long since western Europe has had such a set up? Are all men to be blamed by cultures in the Middle East which make absolutely no sense to us? Looks like it.Stuff like that leaves an impact, for god's sake. Don't you dare, don't you DARE go up to a woman in that situation and say "oh but you could chooooooooooooooose not to live like this! You could choooooooooooose to do something else with your life!" Uh, no, they can't. Lots of women try to and lots of women die for it. It's not so simple.
Well, no. I wouldn't do that. I would seek to help her, but that's because I'm a very nice man.
Look at the various Arab nations. Each of them employ different degrees of restraint towards their women's freedoms. Some are highly restrictive, and others are as free as a number of the Asian countries. But its a changing environment. The attitudes of the eastern countries towards womens place in their world has been slowly changing. And its changing because women are gradually making a stand. Emotional examples don't change that.Guess since the Big Bang theory or string theory hasn't been proven and is greatly theoretical means it has no substance, base in reality, and must be completely dismissed... yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:
Haha... Really... Thats funny, because the chaos theory is still theory. Its got some applicable usage because tests/experiments have been made to give us to make an educated guess.
Where have scientific tests been made to show what would happen if men were more like women?People can very easily make educated guesses on things that have not happened based on the evidence they have perceived in things that have happened.
Nope. They're still called guesses.Since when is honour a very male thing? Now who's being sexist?
You're missing the point, since you're taking it out of context.When did I ever say I didn't want to acknowledge that there are a rather large number of women in this world who have partaken in a few drunken fights?
Well, you actually do it again here with your following remark:Doesn't change the fact that the large majority is still men, despite equal amounts of men and women getting roughly the same level of drunk while out on the piss each weekend.
You can't quite bring yourself to acknowledge it.Now you know how I feel trying to understand how on earth you're getting any of what you're getting out of my posts, you absolutely must pull it out of your ass because you haven't understood a single thing I've said yet, even though it's incredibly simple.
However I'm justified in being confused. My own posts have been very easy to read, and understand.Did you READ THE ARTICLE? Obviously not. The thing you posted is FOOTNOTE saying what the author is PLANNING to research in the FUTURE, aka it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE I POSTED.
It is part of the article, and makes direct reference to what the author of the "study" was planning to do next. You posted a link to that article. I took that article. Its not my fault that your article has information that doesn't completely support your stance..Dear lord.
Strange that you consider God to be male... lol0 -
-
-
-
Snow-Monkey wrote: »wow for some one who's made a pretty good point would you not be competing to win an argument ?
No, not really, I know I won't win against someone that incredibly ignorant, you can't change the mind of someone who refuses to see simple truths and facts.
As for you, Klaz, you actually didn't refute a single thing I said, all you did was resorted to "oh it must be lost on you" with your little rolleyes, indicating that you honestly can't refute anything I said and have decided to go with the childish way of bluffing your way through and pretending I'm the one who doesn't understand, when really, you haven't a clue what you're on about now and you're trying to cover your tracks. Soooooooo, in light of that, it's fairly easy to say this argument is pretty much over since you're now in quite far over your head.
Thanks for the entertainment, though, it's always hilarious to see someone like you fumble.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Snow-Monkey wrote: »you could of let her reply to me first :P
Snowy -its what she wanted -she is now a martyr
toys and pram;)0 -
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement