Originally posted by Lews
I had a terrible day and a horrible night and just want tomorrow afternoon to come around so I can have many strong drinks and also I get really annoyed at people who say that feminism is a bad thing or that parts of it are bad or that anything to do with feminism is bad.
All that feminism is is wanting to be equal to men. Do people try to say that the civil rights movement is bad or has messed up the cotton growing economy? No, because that's racist. All the civil rights movement was about was having equality between races. Why is equality between people considered such a bad thing? Why do people have to conform to traditional gender roles? Why can't a woman be free to focus on her career? She should be free to do anything a man wants to do.
Equality is not a bad thing (when it comes to rights. I'm not talking about social welfare).
Sushipunk
I can't believe Kismet posted a Youtube video. So out of character!
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
For someone who studies linguistics, I would think you would recognize that language is very sexist. Ex. Spanish/French - regardless if there are a million women, if there is only 1 man, they must be referred to in the masculine form. Mailman, Policeman, etc. etc. Language was developed out of patriarchal constructs, and so naturally, a lot of the values are translated through expressions and words. Not to say that I think language actively oppresses women. I do think in some ways, it does undermine the importance of women.
No, it doesn't. That's not how languages work and this is the sort of argument that really gets on my . Here, let me first give you an example in English before we move on to the Romance languages.
When I say "dog", what to you have in mind? A rather furry animal with four legs and a tail, I supposed. It gives no information about its sex whatsoever, and it's not bizarre to hear conversations like this:
"What's the name of your dog?"
"Her name is Stella. [url=http://www.google.com.br/search?client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=%22she's+a+good+dog%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8]She's a good dog[/url]"
However, the word "bitch" is much more specific. It refers only to female dogs, and "he's a good bitch" is seldom, if ever, used to refer to animals. "Dog" is what we call "unmarked" and can be used in a wider array of contexts whereas "bitch" is its "marked" counterpart, restricted to a much more specific environment.
Now, on to my native language.
Portuguese, just like French and Spanish, has two grammatical genders: the so-called Masculine and Feminine. These names are really misnomers, however - there's nothing feminine about socks ("a meia" in Portuguese) and nothing inherently masculine about shoes ("o sapato"). If anything, the socks penetrate the shoes, in case you want to find something sexual about them. Also, keep in mind that not all words are the same gender across languages: blood is masculine in Portuguese, but feminine in Spanish.
So, if I want to say "The socks and the shoes are red", there are four logical possibilities in Portuguese:
A meia e o sapato são vermelhos;
A meia e o sapato são vermelhas;
As meias e os sapatos são vermelhos;
As meias e os sapatos são vermelhas;
Unlike German or Russian, there's no single plural form, so we have to choose between one of the two forms. In the first pair of sentences (a,b), you have two objects (a sock and a shoe) of different grammatical genders - so one choice has to be made, and the so-called "masculine" form just happens to be, like dog, the "unmarked gender" that fits most cases. As a matter of fact, its presence in the language is so pervasive in situations where you'd expect the so-called "feminine" to pop up that you often hear girls saying "Obrigado" (thanks.'MASC') instead of "Obrigada" (thanks.'FEM') and even a new construction that marks the 1st person plural in Brazilian Portuguese ("A gente" = the people) that is supposed to be feminine is used with the so-called masculine most of the time (So the sentence "A gente está cansado" doesn't sound at all unnatural).
The fact that the feminine gender often matches, well, feminine-like things such as the word "woman" and "girl" has nothing to do whatsoever with gender, and it's just a linguistic tendency. Likewise, though I'm clearly a man, I wouldn't think twice before saying "Eu sou uma pessoa curiosa" (I'm a curious.FEM person.FEM) and using a "feminine" adjective to refer to my manly self.
And, before you think this only applies to gender, let's revisit the four sentences I posted. "A" and "B" have both the word "socks" and "shoes" in its singular form, whereas "C" and "D" have them in the plural. The difference? Though ideally you'd only use "A" and "B" in case there's one sock and one shoe, it can be used for more than one object in everyday speech so "O seu sapato está ali" may refer to either one shoe or a proper pair. However, in the words "C" and "D" the words can't refer to just one object, but at least two of them. Can you guess which is the marked and which is the unmarked construction?
Oh, and lest I forget, I'd colloquially say "A meia e o sapato são vermelho" with complete disregard for number... except for the verb.
Therefore, if you ever hear someone say Romance languages are sexist for whatever reason, remain calm and remember: grammatical gender is to sexism what fluoride is to mind control ;)
Lilith
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
Let's just say my observations and opinions on the matter are not being pulled out of my ass; it's not like what I said is taboo or far fetched. There are women who care so much about career, and are unable to balance that with a healthy marriage/family life. No examples necessary.
And why is that exactly so much worse than a father who spends all his time on the road, at work, pulling endless overtime shifts to the point that kids are very much secondary?
You might be lucky enough to raise kids on one income.
Chances are like millions of others, you can't and the partner has to help out as well.
Its no different to the majority of the rest of the world hacking out subsistence living from the land where both the parent's are out in the field and kids running buck wild (or labouring as well from the age of 7-10)
For its so different that women are not standing ankle deep in a rice paddy planting rice or walking 15km to the nearest source of clean water every day, are so different to those that are chained to a job for 10hrs a day in an office?
There is no difference.
'Femininity' is apparently related to child rearing of being locked up in a house, brat wrangling and cooking, its beyond being a caveman, even they had to work hard with their partner to eke out a living...
That mans (and some womens) ideal, it just doesn't exist.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
Who's to say they "lose their nurturing female qualities"? What if they never had them to begin with? And is losing them really that terrible? If they don't want to be a nurturer, then why does it matter? Personally I don't think you can really lose qualities like that, but perhaps I am wrong. Again, taking on "chauvinist" qualities... like these qualities are exclusive to men. This frame of thought indicates that you are very caught up in the social construct of gender roles and acceptable female/male behaviours.
Anyway, women are not the only ones who struggle with balancing careers and families. The only reason anyone really takes notice of it with women however, is because they are 'expected' to maintain the family construct. Men have for a VERY long time struggled with maintaining a career and a healthy family. How many people can say that their fathers played an active role in their lives? More today, but as little as 20-30 years ago, I would doubt there would be many.
With this being said, why is it objectionable for women to be like this, but it's normal for men?
*facepalm*
Theresa- stop trying to psychoanalyze me... lol. You sound like Dr. Phil the way you keep saying things like "gender roles" and "social constructs". I'm not saying it's objectionable for women to be that way, I'm merely pointing out a set of characteristics in overly career oriented women that can lead to difficulties in establishing a normal healthy marriage/family relationship.
You're straying off message trying to figure out how I think. Just focus on what I'm simply saying: some women who go all out into die-hard career mode, trying to emulate the male executive culture, lose their nurturing qualities in the process. Some don't. For those who do, there are several reasons, and one of them is by becoming too much like the male chauvanistic culture as opposed to staying true to their identity while achieving the same as the men they are competing against. Some can balance it, but many can't. Those who can't balance it have difficulties establishing and maintaining healthy romantic relationships because all of their time, for years, has been invested primarily in career.
Some of them never had the nurturing qualities to begin with also, but those aren't the ones I was referring to. If that's what they want, fine for them; I have no problem with it. I'm just trying to make the argument that the traditional nuclear family can be adversely affected by overly career driven women.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
And why is that exactly so much worse than a father who spends all his time on the road, at work, pulling endless overtime shifts to the point that kids are very much secondary?
You might be lucky enough to raise kids on one income.
Chances are like millions of others, you can't and the partner has to help out as well.
Its no different to the majority of the rest of the world hacking out subsistence living from the land where both the parent's are out in the field and kids running buck wild (or labouring as well from the age of 7-10)
For its so different that women are not standing ankle deep in a rice paddy planting rice or walking 15km to the nearest source of clean water every day, are so different to those that are chained to a job for 10hrs a day in an office?
There is no difference.
'Femininity' is apparently related to child rearing of being locked up in a house, brat wrangling and cooking, its beyond being a caveman, even they had to work hard with their partner to eke out a living...
That mans (and some womens) ideal, it just doesn't exist.
Lilith- pull it together. My argument about women in no way suggests that the same doesn't apply to men. In this discussion, I am just focusing on women because we are in a discussion about "feminism". I could just as easily turn the subject in the other direction too.
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
*facepalm*
Theresa- stop trying to psychoanalyze me... lol. You sound like Dr. Phil the way you keep saying things like "gender roles" and "social constructs". I'm not saying it's objectionable for women to be that way, I'm merely pointing out a set of characteristics in overly career oriented women that can lead to difficulties in establishing a normal healthy marriage/family relationship.
You're straying off message trying to figure out how I think. Just focus on what I'm simply saying: some women who go all out into die-hard career mode, trying to emulate the male executive culture, lose their nurturing qualities in the process. Some don't. For those who do, there are several reasons, and one of them is by becoming too much like the male chauvanistic culture as opposed to staying true to their identity while achieving the same as the men they are competing against. Some can balance it, but many can't. Those who can't balance it have difficulties establishing and maintaining healthy romantic relationships because all of their time, for years, has been invested primarily in career.
Some of them never had the nurturing qualities to begin with also, but those aren't the ones I was referring to. If that's what they want, fine for them; I have no problem with it. I'm just trying to make the argument that the traditional nuclear family can be adversely affected by overly career driven women.
I don't disagree that women who care too much about their careers may subsequently damage their personal relationships. However, the very same happens with men, and no one seems to take issue with that. So why is it of any relevance? Double standard?
Again "emulate male culture". You keep referring to gender roles that are a product of socialization. These roles/behaviours/attitudes are not necessarily natural. Therefore, it isn't necessarily unnatural for a woman to behave how our society believes a man should behave. Having aggressive "male" qualities does not imply that one automatically loses or doesn't have nurturing qualities. If anything however, the existence of one may take emphasis off the other perhaps, thus rendering them less effective in one quality or the other.
"Staying true to her identity" doesn't make sense. Perhaps being aggressive and career oriented IS her identity. Again, just because it is deviant from the traditional gender roles does not imply that it isn't natural.
Lilith
But you know about as much about being a woman first hand in contemporary society as I know about American football.
They have a ball, there's quite a lot of them in two teams, they run around and hit each other, sometimes they throw it and that's about it. Now, undoubtedly there is a lot more to it than that, but seeing as I'm neither a footballer or a fella, I'd be talking out my arse as you so succinctly put it, to comment much further.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
I don't disagree that women who care too much about their careers may subsequently damage their personal relationships. However, the very same happens with men, and no one seems to take issue with that. So why is it of any relevance? Double standard?
uhhhhhh.....
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
My argument about women in no way suggests that the same doesn't apply to men. In this discussion, I am just focusing on women because we are in a discussion about "feminism". I could just as easily turn the subject in the other direction too.
quote:
Again "emulate male culture". You keep referring to gender roles that are a product of socialization. These roles/behaviours/attitudes are not necessarily natural. Therefore, it isn't necessarily unnatural for a woman to behave how our society believes a man should behave. Having aggressive "male" qualities does not imply that one automatically loses or doesn't have nurturing qualities.
I'm not going to get into a nature vs. nurture debate. I'm talking about the basic type of masculinity in males and its associated behaviors and attitudes that we both understand (pertianing to 'in the workplace' for this discussion)- and how a woman can take on those characteristics, which may play a negative role in her personal life. I don't know why you keep trying to delve into theoretical implications.... are they natural or unnatural, what does society expect/believe, blah blah blah. You keep insinuating that I am making "either/or" statements. I'm not!
quote:
If anything however, the existence of one may take emphasis off the other perhaps, thus rendering them less effective in one quality or the other.
lol... did you even read what I wrote? I already said this!
quote:
Those who can't balance it have difficulties establishing and maintaining healthy romantic relationships because all of their time, for years, has been invested primarily in career.
Sheesh!
quote:
"Staying true to her identity" doesn't make sense. Perhaps being aggressive and career oriented IS her identity.
Well if that's her identity from the start, and she's laser-focused on her career above all else, then you're just repeating my premise that being that way could lead to difficulty in developing nurturing marriage/family relationships if her time/experience in that realm is limited. Everyone has an identity and those who are impressionable can be susceptible to taking on the characteristics of the environment they become a part of, even if it's vastly different than what they are used to.
quote:
Again, just because it is deviant from the traditional gender roles does not imply that it isn't natural.
Theresa. Who's implying it's not natural?
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
But you know about as much about being a woman first hand in contemporary society as I know about American football.
They have a ball, there's quite a lot of them in two teams, they run around and hit each other, sometimes they throw it and that's about it. Now, undoubtedly there is a lot more to it than that, but seeing as I'm neither a footballer or a fella, I'd be talking out my arse as you so succinctly put it, to comment much further.
Yes, I have no experience being a woman. But, does a psychologist need to have been through a divorce himself to be able to help a patient who has just been through one?
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
My point - what we understand to be "masculine" and "feminine" traits are not exclusive to a particular sex, and it isn't abnormal or deviant (or at least it shouldn't be) for a woman or a man to show signs of either one.
You seem to believe that men and women should fit into their gender roles, and any deviation from this isn't normal/productive/good.
This is what I am getting from your posts. I am ignoring all your other jibber and pointing out that within your jibber, you are constantly referring back to what you seem to think is normal behaviour. However, that "normal behaviour" is culturally specific and we are socialized to act in particular ways. Gender roles are not necessarily natural.
Your points typically work for both men and women, so why does it matter? What you're saying isn't really note-worthy. So I guess I just don't understand... What is your point?
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Feminists also can’t take a ing joke.
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
If you went up to a black man fighting for his right to have certain jobs etc. and called him a ni gger and to get back to the cotton fields, do you think he would find it funny? Or if you said "nice working muscles" to be less controversial/more on par perhaps? Probably not. It's ignorant to make jokes about the subjugation of people, no matter who they are. For a guy who seems relatively intelligent, I am surprised you don't get that... unless of course, you're taking the piss.
