Feminism

[SleipnirX]

I think feminism is good up to the point where it becomes about man-hating rather than equality between the sexes. Unfortunately there's a not negligible number of feminists who do take the whole thing too far. Generally I'm also really not in favour of stuff like 'positive discrimination' - the best person for a job is the best person for the job, regardless of race, religion or gender, and even if that person happens to be a white middle age male.

 

[shionoro]

I think feminism is good up to the point where it becomes about man-hating rather than equality between the sexes. Unfortunately there's a not negligible number of feminists who do take the whole thing too far. Generally I'm also really not in favour of stuff like 'positive discrimination' - the best person for a job is the best person for the job, regardless of race, religion or gender, and even if that person happens to be a white middle age male.

Noone wants to use a person who is less suited to the job.
It is about taking someone from a minority when there are equally suitable applicants.

 

[Reebi]

I think feminism is good up to the point where it becomes about man-hating rather than equality between the sexes. Unfortunately there's a not negligible number of feminists who do take the whole thing too far. Generally I'm also really not in favour of stuff like 'positive discrimination' - the best person for a job is the best person for the job, regardless of race, religion or gender, and even if that person happens to be a white middle age male.

True, but when it comes to advantages to be the best person for the job statistically one gender has the upperhand. More women are educated but experience, which really counts on a résumé, is where more men generally have. Women are socially seen as caretakers so if a parent or child needs caring women tend to put their careers on hold while men stay at work and gain experience. Also, men are raised to be assertive compared to women which is better at landing a job. It's getting better but I've had people tell me I will never make more than my husband and I should focus on having children. The best was when I was working in sales and I lost sales to male coworkers because they were "more knowledgeable". Oh and when I told my boss he would say it was my fault for not closing the sale

 

[M3J]

True, but when it comes to advantages to be the best person for the job statistically one gender has the upperhand. More women are educated but experience, which really counts on a résumé, is where more men generally have. Women are socially seen as caretakers so if a parent or child needs caring women tend to put their careers on hold while men stay at work and gain experience. Also, men are raised to be assertive compared to women which is better at landing a job. It's getting better but I've had people tell me I will never make more than my husband and I should focus on having children. The best was when I was working in sales and I lost sales to male coworkers because they were "more knowledgeable". Oh and when I told my boss he would say it was my fault for not closing the sale

Plus, if women are assertive then they're seen as bitches, while men get praised for it. I've read a transgender woman saying how when she was a guy, people took her seriously and trusted her and complimented her. But after she became a girl, her customers started questioning her and doubting her and everything.

 

[SleipnirX]

Noone wants to use a person who is less suited to the job.
It is about taking someone from a minority when there are equally suitable applicants.

True, but when it comes to advantages to be the best person for the job statistically one gender has the upperhand. More women are educated but experience, which really counts on a résumé, is where more men generally have. Women are socially seen as caretakers so if a parent or child needs caring women tend to put their careers on hold while men stay at work and gain experience. Also, men are raised to be assertive compared to women which is better at landing a job. It's getting better but I've had people tell me I will never make more than my husband and I should focus on having children. The best was when I was working in sales and I lost sales to male coworkers because they were "more knowledgeable". Oh and when I told my boss he would say it was my fault for not closing the sale

I think Reebi's post to a large degree answers Shionoro's - that is to say there is virtually no circumstance where two people will be equally qualified for a job, and it will more often than not be a White, ABC1, 30-50, male who will have the experience to give them the edge. The difference is whether or not you see this as an issue - personally I don't. The reason for that is that a woman, ethnic minority etc can achieve the same level of experience if they choose to prioritise career over all else, provided equal opportunities (as opposed to +ve discrimination) is applied, how that is enforced properly is a whole bother can of worms.

I think the perception of your male colleagues being more knowedgeable is a different (societal) issue rather than one that can be solved by legislation, one I think might begin to fade as more open minded generations come to the fore. I certainly don't know a lot of my age group (18-24) who would really automatically assume a man would know more than a woman about any given topic, I suppose it's linked in that in a fully competitive world, you can somewhat trust that if a woman is in a male-dominated role (e.g. Mechanic) they absolutely know their stuff and deserve to be there.

 

[shionoro]

I think Reebi's post to a large degree answers Shionoro's - that is to say there is virtually no circumstance where two people will be equally qualified for a job, and it will more often than not be a White, ABC1, 30-50, male who will have the experience to give them the edge

That is not true. The usual situation is that you have a lot of people who have the credentials for the job and then the guy who hires goes after personal taste.
Also, let's face it that even more qualified women are often not taken over inexperienced men.

 

[Schpittfeuer]

An old joke- Feminism ends when a woman would have to work as a miner on in quarry equally as man.


Jokes aside- feminism, sexual equality, great idea. No sexual bullying no sexual discrimination.. Wait did I just say no sexual bullying? Huh, extremist feminists (feminazis) perhaps forgot about that. Gender equality in the fields where it is possible is grew idea. Female and male differ on basic biology and genetics level so there indeed are fields where woman won't best man and the other way around. And its okay and I don't understand why would it not be okay to accept the differences.. I mean, what is wrong with the fact that in some fields men do better and in others women do better? I don't see anything wrong with it and trying to forcefully deny it is wrong and that's not the way to go, the feminazis in particular.

 

[shionoro]

An old joke- Feminism ends when a woman would have to work as a miner on in quarry equally as man.


Jokes aside- feminism, sexual equality, great idea. No sexual bullying no sexual discrimination.. Wait did I just say no sexual bullying? Huh, extremist feminists (feminazis) perhaps forgot about that. Gender equality in the fields where it is possible is grew idea. Female and male differ on basic biology and genetics level so there indeed are fields where woman won't best man and the other way around. And its okay and I don't understand why would it not be okay to accept the differences.. I mean, what is wrong with the fact that in some fields men do better and in others women do better? I don't see anything wrong with it and trying to forcefully deny it is wrong and that's not the way to go, the feminazis in particular.

I really do not think that the general consensus in feminism is anything near of what you just made it out to be.

 

[Reebi]

I think Reebi's post to a large degree answers Shionoro's - that is to say there is virtually no circumstance where two people will be equally qualified for a job, and it will more often than not be a White, ABC1, 30-50, male who will have the experience to give them the edge. The difference is whether or not you see this as an issue - personally I don't. The reason for that is that a woman, ethnic minority etc can achieve the same level of experience if they choose to prioritise career over all else, provided equal opportunities (as opposed to +ve discrimination) is applied, how that is enforced properly is a whole bother can of worms.

I think the perception of your male colleagues being more knowedgeable is a different (societal) issue rather than one that can be solved by legislation, one I think might begin to fade as more open minded generations come to the fore. I certainly don't know a lot of my age group (18-24) who would really automatically assume a man would know more than a woman about any given topic, I suppose it's linked in that in a fully competitive world, you can somewhat trust that if a woman is in a male-dominated role (e.g. Mechanic) they absolutely know their stuff and deserve to be there.

You would think but some people that subconsciously would chose a man. Each generation is better but there are still older people in this world with older views.

An old joke- Feminism ends when a woman would have to work as a miner on in quarry equally as man.


Jokes aside- feminism, sexual equality, great idea. No sexual bullying no sexual discrimination.. Wait did I just say no sexual bullying? Huh, extremist feminists (feminazis) perhaps forgot about that. Gender equality in the fields where it is possible is grew idea. Female and male differ on basic biology and genetics level so there indeed are fields where woman won't best man and the other way around. And its okay and I don't understand why would it not be okay to accept the differences.. I mean, what is wrong with the fact that in some fields men do better and in others women do better? I don't see anything wrong with it and trying to forcefully deny it is wrong and that's not the way to go, the feminazis in particular.

The only job women can't do than men is a wang model. Only job men can't do than women is a tampon tester.

 

[M3J]

An old joke- Feminism ends when a woman would have to work as a miner on in quarry equally as man.


Jokes aside- feminism, sexual equality, great idea. No sexual bullying no sexual discrimination.. Wait did I just say no sexual bullying? Huh, extremist feminists (feminazis) perhaps forgot about that. Gender equality in the fields where it is possible is grew idea. Female and male differ on basic biology and genetics level so there indeed are fields where woman won't best man and the other way around. And its okay and I don't understand why would it not be okay to accept the differences.. I mean, what is wrong with the fact that in some fields men do better and in others women do better? I don't see anything wrong with it and trying to forcefully deny it is wrong and that's not the way to go, the feminazis in particular.

That makes no sense. With hard work, either gender can do most work better than the other gender. Wrestling was seen as a man's sport, but women proved they more than belonged, with women like Chyna lifting men and Mae Young taking a powerbomb through the table without protection in her old age, apparently. We've also seen men be great nurses, which I believe is usually seen as a woman's job.

Why should a woman not be promoted to CEO when she's superior just because she has ovaries? Why can't fathers keep custody of their children when they'd take better care than the mothers? Most feminists believe in such equality. While there are "feminazis" and "feminists" that either go overboard or aren't truly feminist in views, that shouldn't invalidate feminists or feminism.

 

[Schpittfeuer]

The only job women can't do than men is a wang model. Only job men can't do than women is a tampon tester.

Yep, and that perfectly sums up that transgender, "I choose my gender" bullshit. Science is science, biology is biology.

That makes no sense. With hard work, either gender can do most work better than the other gender.

You are right for most part, but there are biological differences, later on.

Wrestling was seen as a man's sport, but women proved they more than belonged, with women like Chyna lifting men and Mae Young

That's right, but again, if wrestling was real and not scripted, take Chyna in her prime and take Taker in his prime and who do you think would win?
Its weird to use wrestling as argument for or against feminazism though O_O

We've also seen men be great nurses, which I believe is usually seen as a woman's job

Why should a woman not be promoted to CEO when she's superior just because she has ovaries? Why can't fathers keep custody of their children when they'd take better care than the mothers? Most feminists believe in such equality. While there are "feminazis" and "feminists" that either go overboard or aren't truly feminist in views, that shouldn't invalidate feminists or feminism.

That's true and I never said I am against that equality. Never said woman should not get promoted, get paid less, be assigned less work and so on. I am pointing put the fact that feminazis want to forcefully deny the obvious, the fact that women and men differ on biological level. Men have higher testosterone level, muscle density, higher bone density, we restore stamina better. We can kick harder, punch better (No, me vs Ronda Rousey would not be an argument ), restore stamina quicker. While women live longer, are better at logical stuff, are more likely to succeed in getting a degree, have better buoyancy and such list can go on.
It's science, its not something they (meaning- feminazis, the wrong, bad and extremist feminists) could just deny because they don't like it.

And I don't even see a reason to deny it in first place, its nothing bad nothing wrong, it's freaking biology, its okay -_-

Again, I am all for true (and again TRUE) gender equality. Pay women accordingly when they are better. No sexual discrimination and no gender hate, no "you are man, SHAME, you are a woman, BACK TO THE KITCHEN" agenda- *thumb up*

On the other hand we have extremely excessive and forced "equality", with women failing tests to be a firefighter or police officer, and still getting accepted, because of "lowered standards", iirc London firewatch and police. And this right there is not only wrong, its a hazard, a hazard of putting people in danger.

 

[Reebi]

Yep, and that perfectly sums up that transgender, "I choose my gender" bullshit. Science is science, biology is biology.



You are right for most part, but there are biological differences, later on.

Then again, I was wrong if we factor transgendered individuals. Science has shown those who identify with a different gender have the other sex's brain and not the one their private parts have.

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/



Gender is a socially contructed idea whereas sex is biological

 

[M3J]

How many women have failed at being an officer or firefighter? Men have failed as well. Shit like that shouldn't be confined to a gender, especially when women have proved that they can be just as strong or have as much stamina as men.

 

[Schpittfeuer]

Gender is a socially contructed idea whereas sex is biological

I can see the reasoning behind it, really. But if you are born male, with dominant male genes, BUT "female" brain, you should not be able to freely decide that you are a woman. Because you are not. Such person will never be a true woman. Transvestite will never be able to give birth. Never will he be able to produce hormones just as true woman.

And above that, "I identify myself as ______" (put all those fantasy stupid things people decide to call themselves because they "can") is pure stupidity.

IMHO ofc.

How many women have failed at being an officer or firefighter? Men have failed as well. Shit like that shouldn't be confined to a gender, especially when women have proved that they can be just as strong or have as much stamina as men.

And this right here again is avoiding the fact that male and female brain is different, male and female body is different and male and female genes are different.

Yes, woman can be as strong as man in a field. Women can do equally as good as men in a field. But if you take 25 yo woman, who for example trained whole life to be a football player, and take 25 yo man, who trained whole life to be a footbal player (see what I am doing here? Same field, equal terms), the woman will get outclassed in the result. Why? Because biology, because male body is suitted better for such physical activity. Because bone and muscle structure. Because biology of man and woman is different.

Now take the same situation and go for for example distance swimming. And here, on equal terms, the man gets outclassed. Why? Biology again. Buoyancy, which is "female" attribute.

I am against violent refusal of acceptance of biological differences. This is not something to choose from or deny. This is solid scientific fact. And while no sexual discrimination or gender shaming (feminism-equality) is great, denying science and facts is not.

 

[z.5]

I can see the reasoning behind it, really. But if you are born male, with dominant male genes, BUT "female" brain, you should not be able to freely decide that you are a woman. Because you are not. Such person will never be a true woman. Transvestite will never be able to give birth. Never will he be able to produce hormones just as true woman.

So, how do you consider people who are born with Klinefelter's syndrome, Turner syndrome or XYY syndrome?

How about XX male syndrome? - they have no Y chromasome, but are born with male genetalia, appear male, but are genetically female?

I think that the idea of a 'true woman' or 'true man', especially if you base it solely on genetics, can often be misleading.

I'm also interested in what you mean, exactly, by a "female" brain.

It is true that many studies have found significant differences between male and female brains; for example, males tend to have larger overall brain volumes, whereas females tend to have higher cortical thickness - however the overlap is often enormous. Meaning that it can be impossible to determine if an individual is male or female, by brain scan alone.

I can't recall if any of these studies asked the participants which gender they identified as, to see if differences could be seen between people who identified as one gender or another, the same as their 'biological' gender or opposite to.

It would be interesting to find out if brain morphology was altered in such cases.

Now take the same situation and go for for example distance swimming. And here, on equal terms, the man gets outclassed. Why? Biology again. Buoyancy, which is "female" attribute.

You should tell that to Mr Rogošić.

But I think this whole line of discussion is leading away from the main topic - gender identification isn't really an issue of feminism.

 

[Reebi]

I can see the reasoning behind it, really. But if you are born male, with dominant male genes, BUT "female" brain, you should not be able to freely decide that you are a woman. Because you are not. Such person will never be a true woman. Transvestite will never be able to give birth. Never will he be able to produce hormones just as true woman.

And above that, "I identify myself as ______" (put all those fantasy stupid things people decide to call themselves because they "can") is pure stupidity.

IMHO ofc.



And this right here again is avoiding the fact that male and female brain is different, male and female body is different and male and female genes are different.

Yes, woman can be as strong as man in a field. Women can do equally as good as men in a field. But if you take 25 yo woman, who for example trained whole life to be a football player, and take 25 yo man, who trained whole life to be a footbal player (see what I am doing here? Same field, equal terms), the woman will get outclassed in the result. Why? Because biology, because male body is suitted better for such physical activity. Because bone and muscle structure. Because biology of man and woman is different.

Now take the same situation and go for for example distance swimming. And here, on equal terms, the man gets outclassed. Why? Biology again. Buoyancy, which is "female" attribute.

I am against violent refusal of acceptance of biological differences. This is not something to choose from or deny. This is solid scientific fact. And while no sexual discrimination or gender shaming (feminism-equality) is great, denying science and facts is not.

But if ones brain is telling them one thing and their body doesn't match, how can they be a "msn" or "woman"? What about hermaphrodites? In the Olympics yes men have better records but records get broken. Over the years women have matched and broken previous male records. A female bodybuilder can lift more than an average man. Most girls over here play hockey with the boys. A woman can be stronger than a man.

So, how do you consider people who are born with Klinefelter's syndrome, Turner syndrome or XYY syndrome?

How about XX male syndrome? - they have no Y chromasome, but are born with male genetalia, appear male, but are genetically female?

I think that the idea of a 'true woman' or 'true man', especially if you base it solely on genetics, can often be misleading.

I'm also interested in what you mean, exactly, by a "female" brain.

It is true that many studies have found significant differences between male and female brains; for example, males tend to have larger overall brain volumes, whereas females tend to have higher cortical thickness - however the overlap is often enormous. Meaning that it can be impossible to determine if an individual is male or female, by brain scan alone.

I can't recall if any of these studies asked the participants which gender they identified as, to see if differences could be seen between people who identified as one gender or another, the same as their 'biological' gender or opposite to.

It would be interesting to find out if brain morphology was altered in such cases.


You should tell that to Mr Rogošić.

But I think this whole line of discussion is leading away from the main topic - gender identification isn't really an issue of feminism.

Gender Identification is part of feminism because some women were not born female. The article from Harvard that I posted asked about gender before hormone therapy and their brains matched brains of those with the gender they identify with.

 

[z.5]

The article from Harvard that I posted asked about gender before hormone therapy and their brains matched brains of those with the gender they identify with.

I am not a specialist in this field, but a quick look over the 2 papers she referenced leads me to rather err on the side of caution in her interpretations.

It is likely that there are morphological differences in brain structure between males and females - but again, the overlap is seriously strong and not as clear cut as the article suggests.

Also, she references 2 papers, but both are from the same group - and appear to use similar data.

They also couldn't adequately demonstrate that the changes they saw in the BSTc were purely explainable by gender association.

I am not saying that she is necessarily wrong, it is possible that she isn't - but as I said above, it isn't my field and I don't know the literature for and against her suggestions (I do, however, see that the articles she did choose were, in my mind, critically lacking in certain aspects).

Gender Identification is part of feminism because some women were not born female.

Again, I disagree - Feminism is about equality for women and women's rights.

Gender Identification is a whole 'nother kettle of fish - transgender issues aren't related.
(though, please feel free to create a thread for transgender rights and issues if you feel that the topic is one you wish to discuss)

 

[M3J]

And this right here again is avoiding the fact that male and female brain is different, male and female body is different and male and female genes are different.

Yes, woman can be as strong as man in a field. Women can do equally as good as men in a field. But if you take 25 yo woman, who for example trained whole life to be a football player, and take 25 yo man, who trained whole life to be a footbal player (see what I am doing here? Same field, equal terms), the woman will get outclassed in the result. Why? Because biology, because male body is suitted better for such physical activity. Because bone and muscle structure. Because biology of man and woman is different.

Now take the same situation and go for for example distance swimming. And here, on equal terms, the man gets outclassed. Why? Biology again. Buoyancy, which is "female" attribute.

I am against violent refusal of acceptance of biological differences. This is not something to choose from or deny. This is solid scientific fact. And while no sexual discrimination or gender shaming (feminism-equality) is great, denying science and facts is not.

The woman can outclass the guy in football, just as the man can outclass the woman in distance swimming. Now if you said there's more of a probability that the woman/man would get outclassed, then I'd agree.

 

[Schpittfeuer]

What about hermaphrodites? In the Olympics yes men have better records but records get broken. Over the years women have matched and broken previous male records. A female bodybuilder can lift more than an average man. Most girls over here play hockey with the boys. A woman can be stronger than a man.

Hermaphrodites? Look up Caster Semenya or Laurel Hubbard (although not sure if last one is hermaphrodite). They absolutely destroyed their Olympic competition (women). Why? Biology strikes again. Caster has 3 times the women testosterone level. Laurel is transvestite.
MMA fighter Fox, transvestite, her (his?) opponent after battle said that she did never feel so overpowered in her life, ever.

Now would you like to watch mixed sport events? It would not be interesting at all. Women wouldn't compete in majority of physical fields.

Women grew to break previous male records. Yes, because we are all growing and developing.
Of course female bodybuilder can lift more than average man, is that even an argument? It's like I said- a freaking Brock Lesnar would lift more than average woman therefore women are weaker. It's pointles, not argument at all.

Meanwhile Jill Mills, 2 times World Strongest woman Champion lost arm wrestling challenge to some random average dude in some club match.

Of course women can be stronger than man. Of course Ronda Rousey would kick my ass no diff for sure. Is that an argument for "women are equally good in all physical fields as men"? Nope.

On Equal Terms (male bodybuilder vs female bb, male footballer vs female, professional male weightlifter vs professional female) women couldn't compete, which is visible..

Anyway, the point was (I'll repeat myself 3rd time) that equality is okay, denying biology and science is not okay.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 22, 2017, Original Post Date: Jun 22, 2017 ---

The woman can outclass the guy in football, just as the man can outclass the woman in distance swimming. Now if you said there's more of a probability that the woman/man would get outclassed, then I'd agree.

Because that's true. And its much higher probability, again, because of biology.

Take professional football team consisting of all world stars, males and females, do a showdown.

That wouldn't be even funny to watch.

 

[Reebi]

I am not a specialist in this field, but a quick look over the 2 papers she referenced leads me to rather err on the side of caution in her interpretations.

It is likely that there are morphological differences in brain structure between males and females - but again, the overlap is seriously strong and not as clear cut as the article suggests.

Also, she references 2 papers, but both are from the same group - and appear to use similar data.

They also couldn't adequately demonstrate that the changes they saw in the BSTc were purely explainable by gender association.

I am not saying that she is necessarily wrong, it is possible that she isn't - but as I said above, it isn't my field and I don't know the literature for and against her suggestions (I do, however, see that the articles she did choose were, in my mind, critically lacking in certain aspects).


Again, I disagree - Feminism is about equality for women and women's rights.

Gender Identification is a whole 'nother kettle of fish - transgender issues aren't related.
(though, please feel free to create a thread for transgender rights and issues if you feel that the topic is one you wish to discuss)

Some women are transgender and feminism is about breaking gender norms. What counts as a woman? If feminism is for advancing women's rights on an equal playing field and gender is complex based on societal views than feminism isn't based on protecting female born women but also those than identify as such. It's a debate in feminism but more feminists are now supporting transgendered women. After all, to dismiss a transgendered women as a woman is to dismiss gender identification altogether.