Gender Issue Discussion

FexDS wrote:As I said, how you came to the conclusion of those gender differences will determine the validity of your point. "Women like the color pink, and men think its stupid and ***"  is a sexist statement even if it is perceived as "true" because it's simply not real - it's a societal construct. Same with the idea that girls prefer to intearct in groups and are more prone to crying - these aspects are societally inserted and not naturally so.

Real differences between genders are really not important in a large scheme. Women have better early language development and men have better early motor skills development... so what? in the end we all can talk and walk just fine.

So each instance's appropriateness has to be taken on a case-by-case basis based on the person who instigated it?  If that's not correct, please elaborate.

And as a clarifier, I'm looking for a smaller-scale amount of perspective right here to help me understand your thought processes.  So here's the question, slightly adjusted again:

Are there any instances or situations where you, FexDS, believe a difference between men and women in human society or culture being pointed out doesn't imply sexism towards the female gender?

An example of such a situation would allow me some of your perspective to better be able to know how far your views on the topic lie, and would make knowing what kinds of examples I could use or how deep into certain specific issues we may be able to discuss down the line easier.  The question is not for commentary on the issue.  It's for understanding an alternate perspective on the issue.

Though as to one of your specific examples, women do cry more than men.  There are basic, biological differences such as tear duct size, testosterone acting as an inhibitor in receiving the required stimuli for the brain to produce tears, and the chemical prolactin, which aids in the biological processes of creating milk, acting as a catalyst for tear production.  Biological facts.

Forum, the issue isn't adaptability because they do alter approach in other episodes. The RowdyRuff boys were designed with the intent to win however there's a few things that you overlooked. And I'm not saying this episode is evil or ruins the show. I can and will teach my daughter best I can. It's more of an anecdote on the pervasiveness of perceived gender roles. Anyway, the objective things you missed on:
While Mojo Jojo did create them to beat the girls, there is no evidence of a physical advantage. The episode shows them as equal in size.
The process to make them is essentially equal according to old rhymes. The only difference is gender.
While ADULT males tend to be larger, females are often quicker to their full size. So for many stages in development females on average could have the physical advance.
The girls, at that point, had already gathered a ton of combat experience whereas it was the boys' first fight.
The girls are tight knit and for the most part selfless. The boys are opposite here. The girls should have another distinct advantage add to combat experience in strategy and teamwork.

In just about all objective evidence the girls should have a tremendous advantage.

But the biggest point you missed is this:
While we can look at these and laugh and discuss, my daughter was just getting used to the idea of being three at the time. Her view is that both groups look to be equal in size, shape and even coloration and hair style. A quick visual comparison, the forte of the toddler, shows no difference except gender. It's not the most flagrant example I'll admit but it's a clear message. All things looking equal, boys are stronger. And that's at her level of cognition. At ours it's far more damning as I recorded above.

1. The report only says we can create tears faster. Tears =/= crying. Please stop trying to nitpick arguments - they used onions to test physical capability. Equally men could bleed more if cut as they are larger and thus have more blood --> conclusion is not men bleed more than women.
2. The very study you linked says the researches don't believe the data was accurately reported, that the men underreported their crying, and that the biological side of it means nothing on the emotional side which is the important one and intangible to science. And it touches on how men were told not to cry..
3. Your link does not demonstrate your wannabe point that females are more prone to crying. And before you go searching for how our hormones make us cry let me stop you right there and ask you not to get into the whole "ooh but PMS is real science" bs please. 

Regarding your question, after your last attempt, I no longer believe you are interested in a discussion and am now of the opinion that you are simply looking for a way to frame it so that you can be right by making me name all my rules so you can navigate amongst them to a safety goal. Sorry I'm not intersted in nitpicky useless back and forth on semantics. Sexism is a problem and is real and if you want to have an honest discussion about it you will not try to set specific rules to debate by that befit your preconceived notion of a biological difference that cannot be bypassed. Not getting a menu at a restaurant because I'm female and the male is "supposed to" order is blatant sexism and has nothing to do with biology, and that is what affects the world. People try to base it of "facts" and "differences" but in modernity we need neither of those to treat peoeple equally.

I'm not encouraging little girls to use sex as a weapon. In a personal relationship I drop anyone using any kind of "weapon" at the drop of a hat.

however, cartoon or not, that was presented as a battle. As a battle, and not a sport like in boxing, lives are (potentially) at steak. It may have been presented in a "childish" and downplayed way perhaps, but lives were at steak, both theirs and others, if not literally then in the living out ones live in suffering and squalor as a slave. In such a cirsumstance, I encourage anyone to use whatever weapons they can get, so long as it works.



I didn't say I'd give up.

 Brute force is only unnecessary so long as all parties agree that is not, as soon as someone decides to use brute force, the only choices left are to fight back (at least to defend oneself) or let them walk all over you. Thats the unfortunate reality. I am alive today because I correctly identified situations where I must use direct force. (to be fair, i specialise in wrestling/jujitsu to disable opponents without actually injuring them, but its still violence)

Teaching people both that force is necessary, and when, is important. It may eventually be unnecessary, but i would argue that at that point it would be unnecessary only because everyone (even the people inclined to use it) are aware that it would not work, because everyone else knows how to defeat such attempts. It will, at that point, serving no biological purpous, be (slowly) bread out of the general population.

It simply will not change in my lifetime. The culture might, but the impulses will not, unless genetics reaserch makes some serious inroads.

 By acknowledging this, and preparing others for the possibility, I play a part in making such things unnecessary in the long term. It is not a defeatist attitude, its the reality of the situation. I can only do so much, and it is what I can do that gets done.

 


Also. equal=/= the same. I try to treat everyone as an equal, i treat people very differently however, based on a lot of things.


Yes, your example is blatant sexism, and I'd call bs in that instance. but a great many things are called sexist that are not at all, or are called sexist based on an incomplete understanding of the interaction.


@ skare. those are fair points, but as you just said, that is generally above the ability of a 3 year old to percieve. At a level where it can be percieved, it is also likely that the person in question is more than capable of seeing through such a message, intentional or not, and taking entirely different lessons (or none at all) from the cartoon.

Then the focus (imo) and lesson should be that appearence isn't everything. I know a few body builders who look like absolute monsters, but all they do is lift light weights and do a ton of reps, so I'm significantly stronger than they are, despite a clear (perception of an) advantage on their part.

Actually an interesting little concept about crying is that it was a signal for hunters.  While animals could recognize grunts, groans, moans, yells, twitching, etc, humans had a leg up with crying in the early hunter gathering days.  We could signal to our fellow humans that were were in pain without letting animals know, thus hiding which of us is weakened and could be targeted.  To my knowledge not enough research has been done into this but there is cause to believe that it was at least used by hunters.  So in essence, crying used to be a thing for people to use in a combat situation without giving too much away to "enemies."  Kind of makes crying sound cool if you think of it as a secret code only humans could understand.

@Forum Pirate: you are applying survival tactics to a little girl tv show where the developers had every opportunity to change that message so it would not mean the boys are tougher and can only be beaten through sex. It is just not comparable.

And you can continue to be aware of the whys and whats of how we ended up in a sexist society, we'll still need dialogue and understanding and talk to generate change, and trying to explain the whys is counterproductive to setting the how it should be. So go ahead and explain that in stoneage men beat women with club so it was ok, it still isn't ok now and we wont have it. The whole issue gets murky when you try to apply history because that history is so heavily biased that we cannot use it as an example. 

And change happens/ I have seen immense change in the past 5 years, I witnessed the change from when women would get forced out of their jobs when getting married or pregnant to all major companies starting their own in house daycares. Complaining and going against the status quo works.

Oh yeah another decent example of sexism towards men over women in an instance, ever seen the film Grown Ups? 

Well I probably could stop at saying it is an Adam Sandler movie, but I've watched the whole thing.  Each character has an aspect that is made fun of.  David Spade's character is a loser sex addict.  Kevin James' character is fat.  Adam Sandler's is over worked.  Chris Rock's?  He's a stay at home dad that cooks, cleans, and takes care of the kids.  That's what he gets made fun of the entire movie for, even by his working wife.  That always really pissed me off, because frankly I like to cook, clean, and take care of kids.  I could actually see myself as a stay at home dad while my wife works, one parent working while the other is more oriented towards raising the kids is a common thing.  There is also the household where both parents work, but I always feel one parent should focus more on the home so there is always a parent home at some point of the day, though it's easier said than done in this economy.  When I was watching that movie it made me feel terrible that such a thing is seen as the butt of a joke, that a stay at home dad is a loser while a stay at home mom is a caring nurturing figure.  I've noticed this trend in other media and it always gets to me because some day I might be living my life like that.

I absolutely agree Tolvo. It is horrible that society tells men that its their role in life to "provide for the family" and that they are somewhat inferior if they do housework and childcaring. Mind you this is a product of patriarchy just as much - he gets mocked because hes doing a womans job and women are inferior

It never feels good when you end up feeling like you can't, or have to do something just because of how you were born.

FexDS wrote:1. The report only says we can create tears faster. Tears =/= crying. Please stop trying to nitpick arguments - they used onions to test physical capability. Equally men could bleed more if cut as they are larger and thus have more blood --> conclusion is not men bleed more than women.
2. The very study you linked says the researches don't believe the data was accurately reported, that the men underreported their crying, and that the biological side of it means nothing on the emotional side which is the important one and intangible to science. And it touches on how men were told not to cry..
3. Your link does not demonstrate your wannabe point that females are more prone to crying. And before you go searching for how our hormones make us cry let me stop you right there and ask you not to get into the whole "ooh but PMS is real science" bs please. 

Regarding your question, after your last attempt, I no longer believe you are interested in a discussion and am now of the opinion that you are simply looking for a way to frame it so that you can be right by making me name all my rules so you can navigate amongst them to a safety goal. Sorry I'm not intersted in nitpicky useless back and forth on semantics. Sexism is a problem and is real and if you want to have an honest discussion about it you will not try to set specific rules to debate by that befit your preconceived notion of a biological difference that cannot be bypassed. Not getting a menu at a restaurant because I'm female and the male is "supposed to" order is blatant sexism and has nothing to do with biology, and that is what affects the world. People try to base it of "facts" and "differences" but in modernity we need neither of those to treat peoeple equally.

You have made only one correct assumption in reading into my intents, and that was that it is true that I never was trying to have a discussion about sexism.

As mentioned much earlier in one of my first posts on this, I don't trust an individual's outlook on a societal or cultural issue to be representative of that issue as a whole.  I learn about and develop opinions on issues based on observing other's perspectives.  What others say and what others think about something.  If I hear from enough perspectives with similar observations and conclusions on an issue, then I feel comfortable telling myself that said observation is indicative of the issue on a larger scale.

No, I was never trying to discuss sexism.  I was trying to understand your thoughts on sexism.  Since you hold an opinion that is different from mine, I had hoped that by learning more about your view, I could have a place to start learning new things about the issue.  However, with this post, you have demonstrated nothing but hostility towards me and made it very clear that this isn't going to happen.  I'm sorry you think I'm being manipulative.  I'm sorry that I couldn't present myself in a way that made my approach clear.

But mostly, I'm sorry that I ever tried to understand in the first place.  There are very few people who I feel comfortable talking about these bigger issues with, not even my family.  I make it a point to avoid politics or controversy in normal circumstances.  I know and respect enough people in this great community of ours that, for once, I felt comfortable trying to talk about something that matters instead of just cracking jokes and dropping information on video games and television shows.

Sexism is real.  Sexism is a problem.  Media needs to treat women more fairly.  Things don't exist in a vacuum.  Yadda, yadda, yadda I've read it all before in other arguments on the web, heard it all before in TV and news debates, and heard it all from dozens of commentary videos from respectable cultural analysis video series hosts.  I have gathered enough perspectives on these issues that I believe them to be true and an important part in the fight against sexism.  I support these views, and agree with them.  Now Fex, I leave this discussion with the knowledge that trying to glean a new insight from someone I know and respect rather than an anonymous online source resulted in failure.  I have learned nothing new, and am now even more inclined to believe that there is nothing new to learn.

I thank you for your time.

Reaper you should have just been up front, you weren't and that is why you appeared manipulative since you were trying to manipulate her.  You should have just straight away asked, "Fex do you care about sexism directed against women more than sexism directed against men?"

 
EDIT:  I  just noticed I said Pendant not Reaper, I meant Reaper, sorry Pendant.

My excuse?

All you ponies look alike!  

Skare mentioned this early but this whole patriarchal thing is detrimental to males too. Taking paternity leave should not be met with shock or frowns, as it often is. Sexism is an issue for everyone, because we are letting unchangable biological traits dictate how we treat people and what they are supposed to do. Not dissimilar to inherited slavery.

Whatever Reaper, you got called out for trying to dissect my persona when we are talking about gender issues as a group. If you want to know more about me or how my views are formed, PMs are open. I'm sorry you have learned nothing from this if that is what you say, I believe many people have made several valid and eloquent points that ought to be considered and sometimes incorporated by all. If you only see value from people you "know" then you will miss out on a large collective body of knowledge and untapped potential of understanding. Either way, your choice.

Also I should mention Fex was seemingly questioned for pointing out a lot of misogyny for often pointing out how things effect females.

I wasn't questioned for always bringing up how it effects men.

I think Fex subconsciously thinks more about how it effects women more than men, because she's a woman.

Me?  I think about how it effects men more subconsciously, because I'm a man.  It effects me and I have experienced it and dealt with it.

She has experienced sexism towards women that effects her and has to deal with it.  We can by sympathetic and empathetic towards the plights of one another and understand, but we will never live through the exact thing.  

The thing is Fex has also mentioned plights against men and how they are equally disgusting just as I have spoken against the plights of women and how they are disgusting.  We can never 100% understand how the other gender is effected, but we can get damn close.

 EDIT:  I think I worded this poorly, what i was attempting to say is naturally a person will think of how it effects them first.  If you ask me to think of an instance of sexism, I might draw upon a moment in my life it effected me.  I'm a man, so it is an instance of sexism against men likely.  A woman might think of an instance that effects her, she is female so it is likely sexism against females.

It is a natural thought process that leads a person on the path to thinking about their gender first.  That just means they think of them first, as in chronologically.  Not that they personally believe one has more rights over the other or that everything is against them, they just in their mind the fastest route to think of such an instance will be whatever gender they are.

 EDIT 2:  You know I feel like I just can't figure out a proper way to put this into words, ignore this.

One thing that shocks me in British law is that if your child dies under the age of 18 in Britain, all possessions legally go to the mother. This here just show the flaws of even the law- that possibly the most traumatic event anyone could experience contains sexist outlook in it.

Males sexism about being macho and avoiding 'feminine' jobs is dumb. Fortunately this is changing now and male nurses just to give one example are becoming more common year on year. Having to provide is idiotic too. What happens if a man can't provide for woman and child? Well the obvious answer is woman should get a job, but many men perceive that as an impossible idea, which is ludicrous.

Sadly you have to ask yourself with gender issues is equality really possible? Would equality be enforced (I.e minimum numbers of women and men in jobs), or should we allow variation despite the rift in employment. I never expect women to bother as much with becoming builders, or men wishing to go into care working as frequently as women, yet some companies FORCE minimum amounts of women on boards and such to seem fair, which it obviously isn't.

The whole macho thing is going to get even more ridiculous as time goes on and possibly lessen to a degree.  It is going to be extra odd if it persists since as time goes on it has been noticed that men are becoming more feminine, as in testosterone levels are reducing over time along with the size of certain THINGS.  Each generation seemingly has less and smaller THINGS due to chemicals which are often dsiposed of in the waters, which then are absorbed by fish, plant life, etc.  Basically going up the food chain and reaching us again.  In a hundred years things might become very different for males.

Is penis censored or something?

No I just felt like saying Thing instead of penis, like a child I find it personally amusing to call it a thingy, or other such Doohickey.

Tolvo wrote:The whole macho thing is going to get even more ridiculous as time goes on and possibly lessen to a degree.  It is going to be extra odd if it persists since as time goes on it has been noticed that men are becoming more feminine, as in testosterone levels are reducing over time along with the size of certain THINGS.  Each generation seemingly has less and smaller THINGS due to chemicals which are often dsiposed of in the waters, which then are absorbed by fish, plant life, etc.  Basically going up the food chain and reaching us again.  In a hundred years things might become very different for males.

 
I think the physical has very little to do with. It's knowledge, education, we're a hell of a lot more knowledgable and informed than before. We've access to more opinions. The male feminity has been there before but it was deemed not acceptable and suppressed as the people only had the information\views in their immediate area. Now someone can go somewhere other than the news\local area and find other people\views and go "hey you know what, this isn't weird and it is acceptable".
 
Same goes for sexism, over the years, Emily Davison,  the suffrogette who threw herself in front of horses during a huge horse race. That was covered all over the media(newspaper), although it was a tragedy, it opened a lot of peoples eyes, Women slaving over stoves knew there was others out there. Knowledge\education is the key. Access to to knowledge that there is other people, other people believe this is wrong. It's come along way but still has more to go. Although i'm still going to insist on paying for the meal.

I meant that literally over time men's testicles are shrinking as time goes on due to chemical issues brought on by how we deal with our waste in many countries.  

Though if I do remember correctly there have been studies showing that as time goes on humans will likely become more and more androgynous.

Tolvo wrote:I meant that literally over time men's testicles are shrinking as time goes on due to chemical issues brought on by how we deal with our waste in many countries.  

Though if I do remember correctly there have been studies showing that as time goes on humans will likely become more and more androgynous.

The rising population begs to differ. And was there a study on measuring thingies over generations? First i heard of it getting smaller.

Reading too much scifi Tolvo.

Yes it was measuring over generations, you'd be surprised to hear what parts of human bodies doctors measure, such as the taint.  There are studies focusing around the taint and its seeming connection with potency.  

It doesn't have to do with population unless they somehow vanish, men with small packages can still be just as potent.

Lol true tolvo. Size of organ doesn't = how effective it is. It's how well effective it is at functioning. Considering the average ejaculation is a teaspoon, and the vast majority of the fluid comes from other glands such as seminal vesicle or the prostate, the size of your balls frankly doesn't count for anything.

Also to put it into another perspective, enlarged organs can actually be counterproductive. An enlarged heart in most cases is in response to being unable to previously meet the requirements of the body for blood supply due to underlying problems, and obviously the neoplastic enlargement known as cancer doesn't need explaining. In terms of human anatomy the size is not in anyway linked to functional ability (within normal variation), hence why people with lollipop heads can still be idiots

I think the gonadal discussion while admittedly a part of sexism isn't as important as attitudes of people and the way stereotypes are represented

The problem with machism, while I agree that it's sexist towards men, is that it's rooted in "It's not okay to be a girl", similar to telling women "It's not okay to try to be a man". We're breaking down those aspects of traditional gender roles but they're still prevalent, a woman can voice her opinion on how attractive another woman is but a man can't do the same for another man. In Skare's example, people are shocked when a man wants to take time off work to spend with their newborn. The more we tackle these ancient concepts of gender roles, the more individuals get to do what makes them happy, and I believe that might lead to a better place.