Why I choose subscribe to Feminism or Men's Rights Movement
This thread is branch from the current discussion regarding whether a Men's Rights Movement ought to exist (you can find the thread here:https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5628/should-a-mens-rights-movement-exist). Although my position was lost in the discussion considering that I was having two separate discussions in that thread, I made my position known to the forum member @Banno privately and in better detail regarding my position regarding both feminism, and the men's rights movement. Without going into too much detail in short, I stated to him I chose to not subscribe to feminism given that historically, feminism is a response to disillusioned white women in U.S. society who were tired of white male patriarchy.
Lacking intersectionality, the general position of feminism in looking at female oppression did not include women of color. Similarly, the general position of the men's rights movement, is a response from the "straight white male" position of disillusioned men who felt oppressed in their own way (due to perceived gender biased laws against men). Although both seek to address social problems between men and women, the fact that there appears academically the lack of intersectionality between both movements makes it a problem for other persons of color who are experiencing both racial and sexual oppression. It is well documented that even among the women's rights movement there were African-American women who still experienced racism and of course outside of that even in among black nationalist movements, black women still faced sexual oppression.
According to author Margaret A. Simons in her book "Racism and Feminism" states that the low membership of women of color in the Women's Liberation Movement (a predominant white woman's movement) is due to the lack of analyzing factors from within the minority community such as fears of diving the community, the relationship between black and Latinas and the church, and more importantly addressing the factors of racism as a problem. Similarly, I do not believe that the men's rights movement also considers the issues that many minority men face in relationship to their own oppression.
I understand that people tend to shy away from definitions especially definitions that pertain to the discussion of race relations but frankly I believe that the development of feminism is nothing short of addressing not the issues of women in general but more specifically feminism addresses the problems with white women, and the same can be said about the men's rights movement. Although these are legitimate problems in their own right, I think we need to remove ourselves from the illusion that feminism as well as men's rights movements speak for all women and men. This is why I moved myself to the position of egalitarianism.
I believe when we address the evolutionary root causes of oppression whether based on gender or race and allocate that to it being a human problem in which all humans suffer and we try to identify with it on a human level, we can begin to relieve ourselves of the racial and gender specifics and begin to address suffering as a globally human problem and not a gendered one.
Lacking intersectionality, the general position of feminism in looking at female oppression did not include women of color. Similarly, the general position of the men's rights movement, is a response from the "straight white male" position of disillusioned men who felt oppressed in their own way (due to perceived gender biased laws against men). Although both seek to address social problems between men and women, the fact that there appears academically the lack of intersectionality between both movements makes it a problem for other persons of color who are experiencing both racial and sexual oppression. It is well documented that even among the women's rights movement there were African-American women who still experienced racism and of course outside of that even in among black nationalist movements, black women still faced sexual oppression.
According to author Margaret A. Simons in her book "Racism and Feminism" states that the low membership of women of color in the Women's Liberation Movement (a predominant white woman's movement) is due to the lack of analyzing factors from within the minority community such as fears of diving the community, the relationship between black and Latinas and the church, and more importantly addressing the factors of racism as a problem. Similarly, I do not believe that the men's rights movement also considers the issues that many minority men face in relationship to their own oppression.
I understand that people tend to shy away from definitions especially definitions that pertain to the discussion of race relations but frankly I believe that the development of feminism is nothing short of addressing not the issues of women in general but more specifically feminism addresses the problems with white women, and the same can be said about the men's rights movement. Although these are legitimate problems in their own right, I think we need to remove ourselves from the illusion that feminism as well as men's rights movements speak for all women and men. This is why I moved myself to the position of egalitarianism.
I believe when we address the evolutionary root causes of oppression whether based on gender or race and allocate that to it being a human problem in which all humans suffer and we try to identify with it on a human level, we can begin to relieve ourselves of the racial and gender specifics and begin to address suffering as a globally human problem and not a gendered one.
Comments (62)
I don't agree with your condemnation of feminism, obviously. I think your view of feminism is simplistic.
Nevertheless, I don't mind calling some anti-white-patriarchal movement "egalitarianism" if changing the term would get people to doing more and whining less about whichever term they happen to dislike.
Here we go with the US centrism in everything...
Quoting Anaxagoras
So what do you think about Feminist movement let's say in South Korea, with the minjung feminist movement? Or the women's suffrage movement in Japan? Those women weren't white.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Perhaps by starting with that women's rights have not been an issue only for European whites right from the start?
Where did you contrive this nonsense?
Quoting NKBJ
Nope. Actually there is writing that supports the view that the lack of intersectionality in feminism is what has drawn less members of women of color in different communities.
Of course I'm commenting on the feminism promoted in the United States...
Quoting ssu
Because of the lack of intersectionality that exists in western feminism, many women of color around the world have identified oppression in relation to the cultural issues respective to their places of origin. So those forms of "cultural feminism" exist is because the initial waves of feminism didn't address those issues for example the following research article states:
"Many of the approaches that emerged in the “first” and “second waves” of feminist scholarship and activism were not able to effectively engage with questions of culture. Women of color and ethnicity, postcolonial feminists and poststructural feminists, in addition to the questions and debates raised by liberal feminists (and their critics) on the implications of multiculturalism for feminist goals, have produced scholarship that highlights issues of cultural difference, division, diversity, and differentiation. Their critiques of the “universalism” and “culture-blindness” of second wave theories and practices exposed the hegemonic and exclusionary tendencies of the feminist movement in the global North, and opened up the opportunity to develop intersectional analyses and feminist identity politics, thereby shifting issues of cultural diversity and difference from the margins to the center of international feminism."
Source:http://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-177
Quoting ssu
Can you rephrase the question?
First off, why are you so aggressive?
Second, what, then, is the POINT of your precious egalitarian movement?
Third, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about feminism. You haven't said anything that convinces me, and I get the distinct impression, it wouldn't matter what I said, you have no interest in understanding or believing my position.
In today's society whatever questions arises are either due to the unanswered nature of those questions or simply that those questions were answered but the responses were not clear to some or may need more clarifications. We do have to understand the limit and scope of the word feminism and in which context it is being presented which is now very wide and political. We as human beings are equal and that should be accepted by all no matter of the gender and no matter of the race or religion. Now once we clear that then there is the social, cultural, religious and finally the physical requirements of each and every gender. That being said, women are as much free as men in the world and they should do whatever they want but physical and emotionally there will be limit to their capabilities.
To me the idea of feminism is a problem of the whole world and not only one society or culture or religion. However, there are things that the notion of feminism will not be accepted as equally as in the west as in other cultures or religions.
Excuse me? What "emotional limits" should we women be aware of?
And, just fyi, there are physical limits to the capabilities of men as well.
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. Handbook of emotions (pp. 395-408).
Of course. That's this kind of inherent assumption. But it's better to start "In the US feminism is a response to disillusioned white women..". Women's right movement has been a truly universal movement. Would you start talking about the history of the Labour movement and just and only look at the US?
Quoting Anaxagoras
That just like above, even if it surely was a slip up, one should start from accepting that women's movement was and is quite international. Many times the hot potatoe issues have been something totally different from the Western of US experience, just as in South Korea and Japan. I've not noticed many women-only train cars in the US.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Again this is such an American viewpoint. What is the intersectionality of being Korean in South Korea where 96% of the people are Korean? The ethic minorities after the Koreans are 1 million Chinese, about 150 000 Vietnamese and 140 000 Americans. So if we take race into the question, should we look at those that are women and African Americans in South Korea? Especially those who are part of the US Armed Forces confined in the US bases that are basically little America's, it would be quite strange. I guess some can indeed experience also racism, yet I do assume that South Korean feminists are more interested in changing their own Korean culture and it's views at women's roles etc.
What I'm basically trying to say that women's right / feminist movement hasn't gone in various countries at all in the same way as in the US or UK, which btw. are actually far more conservative countries in many ways for example to the Nordic countries. Hence it's better to refer to the US situation and understand that feminism or womens rights tackle with different obstacle in other countries.
Yet the US-centric viewpoint dominates. Especially when you talk about intersectionality, a term coined in the late 1980's and used first talking about being women and black. If you look at countries that are racially and ethnically very homogenous as South Korea, Japan or my country, Finland, which all make the State of Maine to look extremely multicultural, the issue is a bit odd. In these countries the whole race issue thing is more of simply copying the American discussion to an environment where it hasn't at all the same meaning.
I tried googling it and that source isn't giving me anything of relevance.
I think it's generally understood that men aren't socialized to deal with their emotions in healthy ways, hence higher rates of suicide and physical aggression. Women tend to know and utilize healthy coping mechanisms much more than men.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/why_we_should_help_boys_to_embrace_all_their_feelings
Let's all extol the suffering-earned-virtues of our race, gender, and sexual orientation, and then whoever wins the most virtue gets to dictate what the important issues are, what's moral, fair, and who the bad quays are...
Genius, right?
Well, we all know that dead, white men have it worst of all. :smirk:
https://lafetedubienetre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/brodyhall2008.pdf
Quoting NKBJ
I would argue not true, the idea of higher rate of suicides are not because of emotions. There are 100s of other reasons of why people or as you say men commit suicide and can be an interesting topic to discuss but wouldn't suggesting it mixing it up with the topic on feminism.
Ultimately these people shout a whole lot, but do very little for their fellow human. If you want to see yourself as a philantropist, there are plenty of people in your close vicinity that need help. An honest conversation with a lonely elder or another act of kindness will do more good than any amount of arguing on the internet or angry shouting in rallies.
[mod deletion]
Perusing this article, I see that it's about gender differences and has little to say about women's emotional limitations. It says a few things about men and women processing/expressing emotions differently, but nothing about females being more limited than men.
It does, interestingly say this:
"Women may have more sophisticated emotion concepts that can serve as retrieval cues, or they may encode emotional experiences in more detail than men do (Seidlitz & Diener, 1998)."
and:
"Across many studies, females score higher than males in identifying the meanings of nonverbal
cues of face, body, and voice (Hall, 1978, 1984; McClure, 2000)."
Anyways, I don't think the chapter suggests what you think it does.
Quoting RBS
You're the one who brought up women's emotional abilities, so I was following up on that. It cannot be denied that suicide and emotional disregulation go hand in hand.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women
"What do you mean, you bastard, 'how little is at stake' when FEMINISM is the topic!" someone shrieks .
It's like this: Feminism is important, of course. But it's progress will have little to do with this particular discussion. The men's movement is important too -- but it will neither stand nor fall as a result of anything said here.
Then someone complains that you were US-centric. Had you extended your generalizations to include Europe, South Korea, and Japan, no doubt somebody else would have objected that you were generalizing. And so on and so forth.
Why might it be the case that Feminism tends to be an affair of white women? Might it not be the case that movements develop along the lines of personal relationships? It stands to reason that the white feminists in New England and New York who hatched a major chunk of the movement knew each other through specific class, collegiate, and social networks that were mostly white. In the same way, black civil rights advocates who propelled their interests forward in the civil rights movement knew each other through other class, collegiate, and social networks that were mostly black.
I'm not dismissing racism; I'm only noting that the centuries old pervasive segregation of the races produced white and black movements. It would be unreasonable to expect that social movements are likely to overcome the deeply seated racism of the country.
Likewise I tend to be skeptical of claims about the feminist movement doing this or that without pretty solid empirical research.
My suspicion is that people tend to create narratives in these arenas that don't necessarily have much to do with reality.
Isn't this the issue of reactionary movements? In that, because I don't have some such reaction, then does that posit that I don't apply to it?
You say it when you insist "women," whomever that is meant to be, then assert they must of some kind of weakness, which supposedly makes men, whomever that is meant to be, superior.
This is greatly sexist in at least four ways.
Firstly, you apply there is some trait which applies to all women, such that you are free to assume and conclude it about any individual you encounter. You have a narrative insisting women will have these weaknesses without taking into account the fact of whether it is true or an individual.
Secondly, you got an implicit value judgment about what having a trait means. In instances where women do have a certain emotional trait, you've taken it to be a weakness which affects her value and trustworthiness, when if fact the emotional trait may either be just irrelevant (she does what she's meant to well anyway) or even a strength (for the task she's doing, the emotional trait provides a benefit).
Thirdly, as others have pointed out, you take implications from studies which are not there. You haven't even substantiated women have this trait of weakness you're describing.
Fourth, you use this supposed weakness as a bludgeon to disregard the input of women. The way you've positioned women implies this supposed weakness makes their input irrelevant or untrustworthy. You seem to suppose, not-women (and I assume you) have some kind of upperhand in commenting on what is true or engaging in reasoning.
This an assertion of the superiority of not-women.
It's not loving or respecting women. You are positioning them as irrelevant and disregard what they might have to say.
Really? Maybe you should get out more then!
As for myself I’m not in the habit of blindly ‘respecting’ someone simply because they have a foo-foo.
Note: Don’t worry, just having some fun. I assume you didn’t mean what I extracted for comic effect ;)
First of all, my comment was deleted so that I will call sexiest. What women want with equality and all that is all OK, but what they want on the top of that is not OK.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It is hard to meet everyone and each of the women on the planet and just FYI studies cannot be done by the entire population of women but in general and that’s how a study is done. So, if a study is missing your perspective of the definition of the feminism then you are absolutely entitled to put your perspective forward.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Again, those emotional traits can affect the decision and perspectives in certain conditions given at a certain call that they have to make.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If you can provide a report of BBC stating that men have more suicides than women than my studies are more valuable than those who sell news for money.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
There is nothing like that I have done in my notes. Perhaps you have to read again and again. There is nothing that I called irrelevant and untrustworthy.
This is the problem with the intellect and true understanding. You put to much pressure on your brains to find meanings for things that are not there at all.
It is love and respect and will be there forever, these assertions that you have done here based on my notes will not change my perspective for a woman as I do understand that people are different. So, your idea is again your idea and my idea is mine.
Lol, now if I say all of them doesn't mean those who are angry and yelling all the time but those who are decent and I think most of them are nice and honest and are great to be in conversation with.
:cheer: :100:
It’s generally understand that isn’t the reason for aggression and suicide at all - sadly it seems I had to point out that men are generally less risk adverse, physically stronger and having more testosterone (which factors into aggressive tendencies). There is something to be said for young boys being treated like rough and tumble play is somehow “toxic” and to be subdued too.
You’d had to offer evidence (scientific) to back up the claim that women apparently have healthier coping mechanisms.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
Quoting I like sushi
I really don't want to get into this that deeply. For any scientific article stating x, you can find one stating y. That's because no scientific study is, or is meant to be definitive. You can do your own searches and see for yourself that there are a bunch of scientific studies and arguments on either side.
I think it's like 80-95% (my very unscientific estimate) socialization. Women are encouraged to talk, have therapists, "be in touch" with their feelings, and men are encouraged to be stoic. It's one of the ways patriarchy actually works in women's favor, or at least, kind of, up until you get bozos like RBS over there who think the freedom of expressing emotion and being irrationally controlled by emotions are the same things. :roll:
In short, I think men and women have roughly the same cognitive abilities from the onset, but these are subjected to, and redirected by social circumstances.
Doesn’t matter who is encouraged to do what. Women communicate more verbally than men - it’s biological.
And there’s the problem. In short, you’re wrong.
At least I know enough to preface my opinions with I think, and not just posit TESTOSTERONE! as some kind of definite answer.
Hormones would be included in the 5-20% I believe is not socialization.
Also, it's illogical to say, "since you don't know x to be true, and only believe it to be so, it is therefore wrong."
The wrongness or rightness of any claim is not dependent on my certainty that it is so.
Note: I already pointed this out and the “testosterone” was the biological evidence for this.
Maybe you meant ‘roughly’ to encompass some quite stark differences. I try to be generous with my interpretation but you’re making it difficult for me, sorry.
Really? Cause I literally said:
Quoting NKBJ
Since you mentioned me and you dont have the courage to talk directly then am responding back to what you said about me. Again you made a judgment which is based on your knowledge of the topic.
Now, there will be a time that you will understand this for sure that feminism is a good cause but bringing everything into that cause from a woman's perspective is not right and cannot be justified all right.
I tend not to talk to people who dismiss my opinions on the basis of my sex. Sorry, not sorry. Consider yourself henceforth ignored.
You are NOT and will be NOT IGNORED. :) I like some of your ideas :)
On a serious note, that's your problem of having a limited mindset and ideology. But as long as someone is talking over my views I have the right to defend them. But why are you so angry. Where did I have ever dismissed your opinion. I just don't agree with some of them.
Yeah!
Nietzsche told us about Master and Slave moralities. Those with the Master-morality had strong will and values like 'pride' and 'power' and were competitive whereas those with the Slave morality valued things like kindness, empathy and sympathy and of course were submissive. And thanks to Christian values that slave morality was taking over and making the human race weak where as the Master morality that was praised in Antiquity was dying. So was the trendy thinking in the 19th Century, that really got out of hand in the 20th Century as we all know...
Well, we now have the new hybdrid! So roll over, Nietzsche.
Obviously to counter the toxic Master-morality of the old, the slave-mentality will just not do and thus we have to have the Masterslaves! Hybrids that fight back and not only engage in passive resistance, but teach firmly empathy to all. Yes, these people who have suffered the most compared to anybody ought to be called the Übermensch of the Untermenschen. Those who's priviledge is absolutely non-existent, whose victimhood in intersectional suffering is so great that everybody has to shut up and listen to what they have to say from the mixed-raced lesbian to the worst rich right-wing cis-gendered white male CEO. We can all just bow in front of this new masterclass of misery as we understand our guilt and just how priviledged we are compared to these poor people. And behold those who seek to disagree with the masterslave and shows not enough empathy for the masterslave, he (yes, likely he) has just exposed what a wicked racist nazi bigot he is. :razz:
Quoting NKBJ
I think you are both right, more and/or less. Male and female brains are essentially the same--have the same structure, organization, function, and so on. Testosterone makes the fetus male, and probably gives the brain a male flavor. Males and females are different, but men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus.
Genes, in concert with developmental factors, account for a lot of our behavior. I give genes the edge over experience (socialization, nurture, etc.), maybe 60% over 40%. Animal behavior, including human behavior, has a lot of similarity from individual to individual. Genes and experience, however, allow for a lot of variability from one person to another.
We’re not both right on that count ;)
All that testosterone among young female teens today, btw.
:rofl:
"We can all just bow in front of this new masterclass of misery as we understand our guilt"...
Priceless.
Maybe enough women who have gone into STEM will end up competently killing themselves to equalize the success rate. Are women who served in the Israeli military better at killing themselves than your average French woman?
I was just about to mention the fact that women are more likely to attempt suicide yet men are more likely to succeed.
There is quite a bit of research relating testosterone levels to suicide in men; the fact they are more successful is why I mentioned testosterone as it plays into aggressive behavior (I wrongly assumed that this didn’t need to be made explicit). Men are less risk averse too; testosterone is known to play a significant role in this - be it due to prenatal neurogenesis or in biochemistry.
I clearly pointed out that testosterone plays into suicidal rates and aggression more than some assumed “healthier coping mechanism.” Hormonal imbalances clearly effects mood.
wait, I think she brought it up because YOU suggested women were overly emotional. I am not sure you meant it, but when NKJB questioned the claim, you seemed to confirm that you did mean it. Pointing out the mail suicide rate seems to suggest that males struggle to control their emotions as much (or more) than females. Seems to follow logically based on the discussion?
Quoting I like sushi
How old are you Mr. Sushi? I seem to be finding that many people here are 60+. Does that fit for you? (I am terrible at reading people both here and in real life. I am not suggesting your posts sound old or anything - not there would be anything wrong with sounding old - my point is, I have no clue, but I think it will make sense why I ask if you continue)
I only say that because I hear the sentiment you expressed above a lot, but it doesn't ring true when I observe young people today. Guys are CONSTANTLY encouraged to share their feelings. CONSTANTLY told it is healthy and they will not be judged. Most guys still choose not to, because they find that touchy-feely crap boring. We certainly have the option to "be in touch". Where do you feel the pressure to "be stoic" is coming from? What percent of Americans can even define stoic?
To play devil’s advocate I COULD squeeze out some validation for those points. Men are generally/historically the ones to go to war and to hunt, they are the sex of action and vigour (again we’ve got a testosterone influence here entwined with basic biological makeup making men less risk aversive; therefore able to reap from successful gambles!). Being physically stronger men are therefore thrown into a position to protect their kin - be it from other men, predatory animals or the harshness of the elements. Of course this is not to say that men are not sensitive and/or maternal because they are clearly capable of this and generally more successful in a community by expressing such traits. In this respect we could extrapolate that there is a certain sense of “stoicism” (which I take to mean “reservedness” in the manner which NKBJ expressed; if not then I’d have to take a different tack) instantiated in order to encourage men to apply force only when needed rather than overwhelming their opponents with sheer physical might. Misapplied force is necessarily bad! This requires a certain meditative aspect to stop short of knee-jerk reactions as the consequences are more dire given the physical capacity of men compared to women and children, and given that the community will consist of women and children a fair a just man will be respected above a brutal tyrant.
In “opposition” to this women, not being physically as strong - and obviously being more maternal in nature - possess strength in negotiation and reap the benefits of more risk aversion as the protectors of the weaker and less experienced children in their care. Strangely in this respect I would’ve expected women to be encouraged to venture forth more than men in the same way men are encouraged to be more reserved. Women being encouraged to be sensitive would seem to be redundant as they are already more psychologically prone to risk aversion due to neuroticism which keeps their family safe from unneeded risks. Maybe women are encouraged to be negotiators in order to counterbalance their lack of physical force and to be able to use the force of open communication to direct men when they stray too far from “safety”?
Also:
If RBS didn’t mean it maybe they were thinking along these lines ... I would put forward the data regarding personality differences (which are averaged and varied) regarding Neuroticism. Women, in general, have higher trait neuroticism. It is important to note it is called “neuroticism” to describe the stronger inclination toward certain behaviors - and this is a universal trait that relates to “sensitivity to arousal,” and what is vaguely referred to as “emotional stability”. Keep in mind these are NOT necessarily ‘negative’ traits as they can compliment other traits AND the average difference is likely skewed by the extremes (a point rarely taken onboard because generally speaking people tend to argue from a singular perspective and miss their own bias line of questioning.)
There's been a sea change over the last half century and more. When I was a young boy in the 50s, I noticed that women had much different (and often more interesting) conversations than men did. When family and friends got together, men and women separated at some point, the men talking about farming, machinery, and the like. The women talked about family, individuals, cooking, etc. Maybe women didn't constantly share their feelings, but they dealt much more with affective topics than the men did.
I suppose it was in the 1960s-1970s when men started to talk about more personal topics, without giving up machinery, farming, sports, and the like. The gay circles I travelled in were more like women in conversational topics, but straight men I knew had changed (but not 180º). Straight, younger, more socially conscious men were quite ready to share personal feelings, opinions and so on.
So, 1980 - 2019, 40 years of being harangued to open up and share, god damn it, they have.
It is a good thing. Now, no one, male or female, blathering away about their feelings should be taken at face value. People are sometimes perfectly honest and accurate about what they say they feel, and sometimes they are confused, and/or misrepresent themselves, deliberately or not. So, take all that emoting with several grains of salt.
You know, when you read 19th century letters and non-fictional narratives, men seem to be much more expressive than they were or were thought to be in the 1950s. They express feelings, they weep openly (sometimes, anyway). Injured Civil War soldiers were stoical, for sure, but they also seemed to be more "in touch" with the affective side of life. (I'm generalizing, of course. Some of them were also unexpressive dolts who lacked all subtlety. Some were swine.)
It's interesting that you specifically choose strength as a sign of physical prowess. I think that's a sign of us living in a male-dominated world, where things that men are good at are seen as the markers of prowess in any given field. Women have the edge physically on men in a number of different ways:
Endurance: https://www.livestrong.com/article/286883-muscular-endurance-men-vs-women/
Flexibility: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-501555/Why-female-species-bendy-male.html
Survival under adverse conditions like cold and hunger: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/24/us/sex-and-the-survival-of-the-fittest-calamities-are-a-disaster-for-men.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=A9F394EB52DE57B3BAA36BB78B11EB0C&gwt=pay
Just average life expectancy and good health: http://time.com/5538099/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men/
Bonus fact, the y-chromosome is basically a degenerated x-chromosome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921885/
(Men are MUTANTS!!!! JK :P)
?
I then played “devil’s advocate” (and said so quite clearly):
In regards to what I was misquoted as saying (see your quote in this post).
So, I'm responding to your devil's advocacy... not sure what your point is.
https://medium.com/@boazabel/female-chief-in-malawi-breaks-up-850-child-marriages-and-sends-girls-back-to-school-918fd4d7b414
eeesh, seems obvious enough when I look at it now. My bad.
Quoting I like sushi
So they should not be allowed to vote? First, I AM JOKING. Nothing you said even begins to suggest this. But I am interested in where your line of reasoning leads? I would have to do some research, but everything you said seems reasonable enough. But what do we do with that information? How does it lead to different treatment of men and women?
Quoting Bitter Crank
You were a far more observant young boy than I. I spent my holidays avoiding adult conversations (hmmm, I think I still do that).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Haha, indeed. I didn't say we did it willingly :smile:
Quoting Bitter Crank
I certainly find a lot of people seem to be accidentally misrepresenting themselves (in real life, I don't know anyone online well enough to know if misrepresentation is occurring). Hopefully, an awareness that it happens helps me not to do it, but that is probably wishful thinking.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't think men ever were ever the emotionless logic machines they can be portrayed as (as soon as I phrase it that way, it sounds extra silly). This reminded me of reading male responses to female calls for the right to vote (from 1800s to early 1900s); perhaps this view of maleness was grown as an embodiment of everything females supposedly were not? And the more females questioned why they were denied equal access, the more it had to be justified by "male" differences, so men worked harder to embody these traits? I am probably just making up bullshit.
Of course. I make up my bullshit, you make up your bullshit. That's OK. The important thing is not to believe your own bullshit. That's where people go wrong. They believe their own bullshit.
Learn to like it enough, and there's no limit to how far we can go!
Fake it till you make it? More like, shart 'till you're smart.
haha, alright. So I got that going for me :smile:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That was very nicely done :rofl:
It doesn’t lead to ideas about how to treat men and women differently. Some men are more “feminine” than some women, and some women are more “masculine” than some men. It is useful to understand the average differences when considering ideas about forcing equity upon people based on the “average” when no one is “average”.
Ok. Can you give me an example of a type of equity that is being forced on people? Ideally one that we would NOT force if we all KNEW that women act more emotionally?
I am sure there are some nice obvious examples, but I got nothing?
Me saying what I believe to be nonsense is not aggressive, it was pure nonsense.
Quoting NKBJ
Egalitarianism speaks both on the macro and micro levels of the human condition and seeks to (at least philosophically and theoretically) correcting the problem. For example if I'm going through an issue of race at my job or if there is a law that I find that seems to be biased against my demographic, egalitarianism seeks to undo that issue which in that case we have the "civil rights movement" which seeks to undo the type of racial/social discrimination that affects me and those that are among my demographic. I believe egalitarianism seeks to undo the type of social/political problems all humans face because when we make things a human problem instead of a black or white, male or female issue then we can empathize with each other.
Quoting NKBJ
My point is not to convince you, but to discuss. I'm not here to write a thesis on the subject, just espouse my views.
But, egalitarianism wasn't enough to get the civil rights movement started.
With the exception of foreigners, the unborn, criminals and the homeless all lives matter in principle.