Men and women are different

[Earth]

Why is this that, along with Israel/Palestine, threads on Feminism on the internet always bring out the worst in people?

Is this directed at me?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why is this that, along with Israel/Palestine, threads on Feminism on the internet always bring out the worst in people?

Is this directed at me?

No.

[The Mikado]

Why is this that, along with Israel/Palestine, threads on Feminism on the internet always bring out the worst in people?

People have a lot invested in their archetypes.

As for I/P, arguments between people that support Israel due to Islamophobia vs people supporting Palestine due to anti-Semitism is the norm.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is this that, along with Israel/Palestine, threads on Feminism on the internet always bring out the worst in people?

Is this directed at me?

No.

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

[Earth]

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

Is there anything realistic, or practical about this topic, or is it just the idealistic intention of "fighting" back against stereotypes?

What puzzles me is the lip service paid to egalitarianism by male feminists who conveniently ignore gender within capitalism, within greater, and more important issues such the culture it comes from, while they focus on feel-good egalitarian silliness. Great, you're a feminist, and you like to talk about how things should be, and how people should be treated as equals.

Why talk about the freedom to dress however you like within a system uses that very idea to continue domination? I don't particularly hear anything substantial from liberals on this point.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

Is there anything realistic, or practical about this topic, or is it just the idealistic intention of "fighting" back against stereotypes?

What puzzles me is the lip service paid to egalitarianism by male feminists who conveniently ignore gender within capitalism, within greater, and more important issues such the culture it comes from, while they focus on feel-good egalitarian silliness. Great, you're a feminist, and you like to talk about how things should be, and how people should be treated as equals.

Why talk about the freedom to dress however you like within a system uses that very idea to continue domination? I don't particularly hear anything substantial from liberals on this point.

I think Terry Eagleton put it best when he said something like (I´ve spent the last 10 minutes searching in vain for the quote) "The problem with liberalism is that it holds choice to be good itself. What is important is not what is chosen but that I have chosen it. Which is why liberalism is an ideology which appeals to so much adolescents".

[Free Palestine]

Why is this that, along with Israel/Palestine, threads on Feminism on the internet always bring out the worst in people?

People have a lot invested in their archetypes.

As for I/P, arguments between people that support Israel due to Islamophobia vs people supporting Palestine due to anti-Semitism is the norm.

And similarly, arguments concerning feminism draw out the crypto-misogyny.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

Is there anything realistic, or practical about this topic, or is it just the idealistic intention of "fighting" back against stereotypes?

What puzzles me is the lip service paid to egalitarianism by male feminists who conveniently ignore gender within capitalism, within greater, and more important issues such the culture it comes from, while they focus on feel-good egalitarian silliness. Great, you're a feminist, and you like to talk about how things should be, and how people should be treated as equals.

Why talk about the freedom to dress however you like within a system uses that very idea to continue domination? I don't particularly hear anything substantial from liberals on this point.

I don't get your point. How exactly defending equality leads to ignore "more important issues" ? And what are these issues exactly ?

[Free Palestine]

As if one in four American women being sexually assaulted in their lifetime isn't an important issue.  Or, for that matter, unequal pay and discrimination against people of both sexes.

[Earth]

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

Is there anything realistic, or practical about this topic, or is it just the idealistic intention of "fighting" back against stereotypes?

What puzzles me is the lip service paid to egalitarianism by male feminists who conveniently ignore gender within capitalism, within greater, and more important issues such the culture it comes from, while they focus on feel-good egalitarian silliness. Great, you're a feminist, and you like to talk about how things should be, and how people should be treated as equals.

Why talk about the freedom to dress however you like within a system uses that very idea to continue domination? I don't particularly hear anything substantial from liberals on this point.

I don't get your point. How exactly defending equality leads to ignore "more important issues" ? And what are these issues exactly ?

I never said it "leads" to the ignorance of other issues, but that these issues are already ignored by comfortable middle class liberals, and feminists.

It's an armchair issue, to be honest. So you're "defending" equality, great. I support equality that doesn't particularly exist, but I'm also not in the position to do anything about it beside treat people as such, and post about it online. It's lip service.

More important issues than the standard feminist cliches?

The economy
The NATO military action
the Israel Palestine crisis
The war on the drugs
Unemployment
Homelessness
Proposed cuts to social spending
The backlash towards 'Obamacare'
Abortion rights

I doubt I have the energy to list everything more than lazy support of equality. I'm sorry, gender stereotypes are not a very pressing issue given the current circumstances.

If it makes me a misogynist, so be it. Though it serves the same purpose as those who scream "anti-semite!" when Israel is criticized. When it comes from certain people, 'misogynist' might as well be a label to wear proudly.

As far as feminists bringing up the issue of fair wages, why don't they ever look at the very situation they only pay a small bit of attention to? Capitalism. "Missing the forest for the trees" sums up the problem concisely.

[Insula Dei]

One of the best lines on feminism I've ever encountered came from this weird guy who was selling his 'globalist conspiracy' self-printed masterwork in a student restaurant: 'Muslim and African women are being oppressed much more and  in much higher numbers by Western men, than they could ever be by their own men, and so are Muslim and African men.'  (Sounds less poetic in translation, but the general idea holds). This strikes me as essentially true and it's something I usually feel popping up when I'm involved in discussions like this. Is this about what you mean , Earth?


Feel free to go on with what you guys were doing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So it's directed at egalitarians like Morgan or me ? I'd like to know how fighting against gender stereotypes and believing in an individual which isn't biologically determined is "the worst of people".

Is there anything realistic, or practical about this topic, or is it just the idealistic intention of "fighting" back against stereotypes?

What puzzles me is the lip service paid to egalitarianism by male feminists who conveniently ignore gender within capitalism, within greater, and more important issues such the culture it comes from, while they focus on feel-good egalitarian silliness. Great, you're a feminist, and you like to talk about how things should be, and how people should be treated as equals.

Why talk about the freedom to dress however you like within a system uses that very idea to continue domination? I don't particularly hear anything substantial from liberals on this point.

I don't get your point. How exactly defending equality leads to ignore "more important issues" ? And what are these issues exactly ?

I never said it "leads" to the ignorance of other issues, but that these issues are already ignored by comfortable middle class liberals, and feminists.

It's an armchair issue, to be honest. So you're "defending" equality, great. I support equality that doesn't particularly exist, but I'm also not in the position to do anything about it beside treat people as such, and post about it online. It's lip service.

More important issues than the standard feminist cliches?

The economy
The NATO military action
the Israel Palestine crisis
The war on the drugs
Unemployment
Homelessness
Proposed cuts to social spending
The backlash towards 'Obamacare'
Abortion rights

I doubt I have the energy to list everything more than lazy support of equality. I'm sorry, gender stereotypes are not a very pressing issue given the current circumstances.

If it makes me a misogynist, so be it. Though it serves the same purpose as those who scream "anti-semite!" when Israel is criticized. When it comes from certain people, 'misogynist' might as well be a label to wear proudly.

As far as feminists bringing up the issue of fair wages, why don't they ever look at the very situation they only pay a small bit of attention to? Capitalism. "Missing the forest for the trees" sums up the problem concisely.

Supporting sex equality doesn't prevent me from also supporting economic stimulus, peace in Israel, strong policies against unemployment and poverty, universal healthcare, abortion, etc... But I find interesting that you seem to be fine with half of the humanity being discriminated because of stupid stereotypes.

[Gustaf]

One of the best lines on feminism I've ever encountered came from this weird guy who was selling his 'globalist conspiracy' self-printed masterwork in a student restaurant: 'Muslim and African women are being oppressed much more and  in much higher numbers by Western men, than they could ever be by their own men, and so are Muslim and African men.'  (Sounds less poetic in translation, but the general idea holds). This strikes me as essentially true and it's something I usually feel popping up when I'm involved in discussions like this. Is this about what you mean , Earth?


Feel free to go on with what you guys were doing.

Problem is that that is pretty untrue and that believing it means actively contributing to that oppression continuing. 

[Earth]

Is this about what you mean , Earth?

It's not what I mean. My post is more along the lines of modern populist feminism's bankruptcy than anything having to do with the West's actions abroad.  

Supporting sex equality doesn't prevent me from also supporting economic stimulus, peace in Israel, strong policies against unemployment and poverty, universal healthcare, abortion, etc...

It's not preventing you, again, I didn't say that, but other than it being a shallow position, what good is it? Why is this argument always the simplest, "I support egalitarianism", without the examination of gender roles, capitalism? It's as if people just like to call themselves feminists without realizing the extent of the problem- that it's much bigger than simply stereotypes. It's intellectually lazy.

But I find interesting that you seem to be fine with half of the humanity being discriminated because of stupid stereotypes.

I'm not fine with it, but the problem is severely misdiagnosed by those people who most fervently cheer for egalitarianism.

But it really does speak to some idealistic mentality I don't share- essentially, good luck in trying to undo it; I'll waste my time on something more fruitful.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's not preventing you, again, I didn't say that, but other than it being a shallow position, what good is it? Why is this argument always the simplest, "I support egalitarianism", without the examination of gender roles, capitalism? It's as if people just like to call themselves feminists without realizing the extent of the problem- that it's much bigger than simply stereotypes. It's intellectually lazy.

Gender discrimination has existed far before capitalism and I don't see how the two things are minimally tied. Of course, capitalism may determine the means through which discrimination is enforced (workplace relationships, financial authonomy, etc...). But that hasn't anything to do with its principles. It just makes no sense.

Also, I don't know about you, but I think so far da evul kapitalizm has brought a lot of good things to humanity. That's not to say it's perfect, but it would be nice if all those who want to "put an end to capitalism" first found a better economic system. So far, I don't know any.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's be realistic : neither me or you will even try to "undo" anything. We just talk about what is fine and what needs to be changed. Since the Middle Age, civilization has done considerable progresses in the fight against prejudices and barbarity. If this trend continues, it is realistic to consider that gender stereotypes will, if not disappear, at least diminish considerably and stop playing the role they play in today's society. That might be "idealism", but that makes sense, certainly more so than your vague rantings against "capitalism".

[courts]

Since the Middle Age, civilization has done considerable progresses in the fight against prejudices and barbarity.

lol

[Earth]

Gender discrimination has existed far before capitalism and I don't see how the two things are minimally tied. Of course, capitalism may determine the means through which discrimination is enforced (workplace relationships, financial authonomy, etc...). But that hasn't anything to do with its principles. It just makes no sense.

This is exactly the problem; you think subjugation, which exists because of economic, and political repression, is somehow a vacuum, divorced from everything else; you just said it yourself, you can't see the ties between them. No one said, certainly I didn't, that gender discrimination began with capitalism, but it has everything to do with an economic system that sets one group above another, and obviously, the economic system we live under utilizes this very difference to subjugate every further. But you don't have a problem with the disease- you have a problem with one outward symptom of it.

Also, I don't know about you, but I think so far da evul kapitalizm has brought a lot of good things to humanity. That's not to say it's perfect, but it would be nice if all those who want to "put an end to capitalism" first found a better economic system. So far, I don't know any.

You want your cake and eat it, too; you want more egalitarianism without altering the system in which egalitarianism is prevented from existing. This is why I dislike feminists so much, at least the liberals. The argument is always so shallow, "women should work just like men", but the problem is wanting even more people to labor their lives away; "women should join the military if they want to", not that the very idea of joining the military is the problem.

Essentially, liberals act as if the peak of existence is to become like the white middle class for everyone. Of course they like capitalism, because that's what allows this particular middle class to exist (unless it destroys it first).

"Gay marriage if you want it" without talking about the restricting nature of marriage in the first place.

Let's be realistic : neither me or you will even try to "undo" anything. We just talk about what is fine and what needs to be changed. Since the Middle Age, civilization has done considerable progresses in the fight against prejudices and barbarity. If this trend continues, it is realistic to consider that gender stereotypes will, if not disappear, at least diminish considerably and stop playing the role they play in today's society. That might be "idealism", but that makes sense, certainly more so than your vague rantings against "capitalism".

It's pure idealism, and what I actually ask is for people to be realistic, which feminists are not. This is why all the talk of egalitarianism is bulls*it; you make with the arguments of what should be instead of starting with the argument of what we can change. Your idea of "progress" is laughable, at best.

[Gustaf]

This thread is quite depressing.

[Insula Dei]

Actually, on topic for this thread, the idea that there is not at least a certain amount of truth in 'On ne nait pas femme, on le devient', strikes me as weird. I always assumed that that was pretty much generally accepted.

Again, I have little desire to get sucked into this discussion, nor have I actually more than skimmed a couple of the posts here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hilarious. You accuse me of being idealistic because I think gender stereotypes will decline, while you want to get rid of capitalism ? So OK, you want to talk only about what we can change : I don't know about you, but I'm not deluded enough to think I can change a society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Instead on constantly repeating the same bullsh*t, it would be nice if you at least tried to explain how in the world capitalism is in any way linked to gender discriminations, other than on purely formal stuff. Also, capitalism doesn't set "one group above another", it sets individuals above one another. Oh, and cut the "the system" thing : a system is made of individuals and has no proper will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Egalitarism doesn't necessarily mean every person being strictly equal. It's mainly about ensuring equal opportunities. Which of course is impossible in basic capitalism, but is perfectly realizable in a reasonably regulated capitalism, at least to some extent. I don't want women to act like men, I just want their choices not to be conditioned by the bigoted vision the society has of "feminity". If a woman wants to work and succeed at work, I don't see the problem with it : that doesn't mean I want her to work "like a man" (LOL). If a woman wants to join the military, that's equally fine (you know, the military mighti be useful sometimes).

[Gustaf]

Antonio, you're making too much sense for Earth. I wouldn't even bother.

[Mopsus]

Antonio, you're making too much sense for Earth. I wouldn't even bother.

So says the guy who spends pages and pages of threads debating opebo...

[Gustaf]

Antonio, you're making too much sense for Earth. I wouldn't even bother.

So says the guy who spends pages and pages of threads debating opebo...

Oh, but I don't debate Opebo. I just mock him because it amuses me to do so. I've begun to realize though, that people think I'm serious in those discussions.

[The Mikado]

Earth, it's almost like some people are too obsessed with outdated class and economic concerns to see how societal structures, linguistic structures, and other cultural constructs are the actual shaping force of the mental prisons you find yourself in regarding gender and other areas of society, per Foucault, Lacan, etc...  

(Al kills me in three...two...one...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Earth, it's almost like some people are too obsessed with outdated class and economic concerns to see how societal structures, linguistic structures, and other cultural constructs are the actual shaping force of the mental prisons you find yourself in regarding gender and other areas of society, per Foucault, Lacan, etc...  

(Al kills me in three...two...one...)

Tell me, how exactly do you expect to make any sense of cultural constructs and so on without reference to the context in which they are formed? I think you are quite right to attack this idea of monolithic structures (an idea almost as amusingly nineteenth century as Progress with a big 'p'), but unless you accept that there are structures of some sort, then you can never really study or analyse anything. Ultimately collectives are always made up of individuals, and that is what makes them so interesting. A bit like Lego.

Besides, just because something is 'culturally constructed' does not make it any less 'real' - you could always debate the meaning of reality (obviously), but anything that has a meaningful impact on people's lives has to count as 'real', don't you think?

()