The history of sexism...where did it begin? Why? Can we rid our world of it?

Wegs, re your earlier, let me cut to the chase. Yes, this thread IS about sexism, specifically. But it HAS to be looked at against the greater picture. You can't take a thin slice of the pie and declare that it IS the pie and that's there is to it.

The lot of women and men, now and throughout the ages has been approximately the same. Each sex has suffered, enjoyed, gained, lost .. in approximately the same measure, though in different ways.

Men have suffered greatly in their untold millions and millions fighting wars for their respective states. Men have toiled and died in their millions in other ignominious, cruel, tortuous, usurious, abusive and hazardous ways .. and often to make a home for their wife and family, and always in the service of the state or some of some plutocrat sustaining his pile of wealth.

The state DOES NOT care about your equality. The state will foment within you, whatever idea is in it's interests. As prime examples, during the war years (1st and 2nd WW) the state fomented the idea that you had to sacrifice your security for your freedom. Now the opposite suits the state - you have to sacrifice your freedom for your security (witness your Dept Homeland Security, etc) .

In this era of extremely high (and burgeoning) cost of government, and rampant consumerism, the state / hegemony needs vastly greater numbers of tax payers and consumers. That's why the state makes it easy, no, virtually compulsory for you, to go off to work and give your kids to another woman to rear. Because it now has two more tax payers - you and the other woman (not to speak of the spin off effects to consumerism - two more spenders - that this has down the line).

In my country (Australia) fully 38% of the revenue to the legal and judicial system is derived via Family Court matters, i.e., dealing with divorce, who gets the children, assets, etc. And THAT'S why we have no fault divorce, and why divorce is so easy .. virtually encouraged. Because build into the Family Law Act, is the proviso that no matter who is at fault, no matter how frivolous or unfair or vexatious the litigation, the courts and the lawyers and the barristers, etc, will be paid as 1st CHARGE against the assets. There goes half - or sometimes ALL the house.

You are a mere vassal of your overlord - a slave to the state, with your 'female equality' notions and an investment into their income and future sustenance.

If it served the state that you should get off to a hatchery and spit out six little suckers over the next six years (ala Huxley's Brave New World) you'd be off on the next bus !

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you prefer to think that, go for it!

Ones that are sure of themselves, don't much care what other people think about them, ones that think they are equal to men and can do anything they can, from running a company to digging ditches . . . in other words, women that people like Aracua think are "masculine and rude." (his words in this very thread.)
But everyone is different, and that's fine.

I guarantee that Karen L (old friend of mine) is better at digging ditches than you are. So your statement fails. (Assuming you are a man.)

Personal anecdote != data.

Ah, but you didn't say that! You said "Men ARE better than women in some things." I gave you an example of a woman who was better. Thus, your statement fails.
Now you can start backtracking and saying "well, I meant they are USUALLY better at it. They gravitate towards it. There tend to be more men digging ditches." If so, great! You're not stating things as universal truths, which is a big step forward.

That's a big fail again. You make the universal statement "women must be more suited to this role" based purely on your anecdotal experience. It's like claiming that Chinese can't drive because you see them all over the road, or that blacks MUST be amoral because you see them commit crimes more often. Now, start backing away from that statement and say things like "women tend to gravitate to jobs like that more often" and you are on much firmer ground.

Naah. You keep missing the point that generalizations about races/sexes/religions etc generally fail. I'll keep trying to see if you get it. If not, well, I tried.

Do you think those two statements are contradictory?

Nope, poor assumption.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is the real sexist here billvon ? There is a poignant interchange between you and I which reveals it's you. In post #21, you quoted me as saying ..

I love looking at good looking, sexy women.

and you retorted ..

That's fine! Other people prefer looking at strong, smart women without fake hair, boobs and faces. To each their own.

So, your idea .. the concept that leaps into your mind of good looking sexy women is that of those with fake hair, fake boobs fake faces, etc. Else, why would you counter it with 'strong smart women' (without the fakery).

Then I said ..

The women in my life are strong, smart, without fake hair or boobs or faces .. and they are simply gorgeous.

Then you further convoluted it thus ..

That's great! Even if some people would claim that makes them dykey or too masculine.

So, you then took YOUR VERY OWN characterision of a good woman as being smart and strong, and called it dykey and masculine.

And now ..

Ones that are sure of themselves, don't much care what other people think about them, ones that think they are equal to men and can do anything they can, from running a company to digging ditches

Strike me pink ! You're a tough one. What about those that are a bit insecure, those who do care what other people think about them, those who can't run a company or dig a ditch ? What are we to do with those poor souls ?

But wait .. there's more .. you now like ..

women that .. are "masculine and rude."

Good grief !!! What about those poor souls who are feminie and polite ? You seem to be somewhat conflicted in the women department.

Onwards .. you said ..

I guarantee that Karen L (old friend of mine) is better at digging ditches than you are. So your statement fails. (Assuming you are a man.)

Goes to show the facile nature of your arguement. You may know Karen L, but you don't know me, therefore, you'd have NO IDEA concerning my ability ot dig a ditch. Yet you make an absolute statement about it, and offer a guarrantee to boot. Remind me not to buy a used car from you.

You said ..

Ah, but you didn't say that! You said "Men ARE better than women in some things." I gave you an example of a woman who was better. Thus, your statement fails.
Now you can start backtracking and saying "well, I meant they are USUALLY better at it. They gravitate towards it. There tend to be more men digging ditches." If so, great! You're not stating things as universal truths, which is a big step forward.

Bereft of any real arguement, you are now resorting to semanrtic and word play. As IF I ever stated anywhere that men being better than women at digging ditches, always and forever, is a universal thruth .. a .. UNIVERSAL .. TRUTH (Wow !)

Here's what I've said all along. Men are predisposed to some roles and women to others. Men are better at some things than women and women are better at some things than men. Reading through my posts, I've mentioned SEVERAL TIMES the matter of exceptions, and I've NEVER couched my opinion as absolute in all cases.

You said;

That's a big fail again. You make the universal statement "women must be more suited to this role" based purely on your anecdotal experience. It's like claiming that Chinese can't drive because you see them all over the road, or that blacks MUST be amoral because you see them commit crimes more often. Now, start backing away from that statement and say things like "women tend to gravitate to jobs like that more often" and you are on much firmer ground.

It would be a universal statent if I said "ALL women .. etc" There is nothing wrong with my statement. Here is another; "women are shorter than men". And another; "women are lighter than men". And another "women live longer than men". Each statement is perfectly true, and it would be obvious to any reasonable person that I don't mean ALL women in ALL cases. Here is another; watermelons ore bigger than rockmelons (yet I do believe, long ago, far far away, I did see a tiny watermelon next to a huge rockmelon)

Calling my experience anecdotal is falacious too. Because it would be manifestly evident to you or anyone else that the vast majority of finger nail painters in nail salons ARE women, therefore, it is perfectly logical to say women are more suited to that role - be it by way of inclination, culture, needs, preference, or whatever.

You said;

Naah. You keep missing the point that generalizations about races/sexes/religions etc generally fail. I'll keep trying to see if you get it. If not, well, I tried.

Ahh, generally ? Talk about anecdotal, hmm ? Where is your passion for absolute and universal .. emm, truths now ?

Further, in post #25, I referred to some 1930's, 40's, 50's clips ..

Interestingly, for fun, I just had a look at videos someones posted about time travel in old films .. here ..
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ers-caught-in-old-films&p=3094753#post3094753

Go have a look at it. Have a look at all the gorgeous women being women and all the men being men. Nobody seems to be suffering from oppression there .. all look extremely happy, and I daresay, much happier than vast numbers of dissillusioned women I see today. Go figure

Your response ..

Hmm. How odd that actors would portray something different than reality! Next thing you know you're going to tell us that life isn't as funny as modern comedies make it out to be, or as scary as horror films suggest.

I followed with ..

Did you see the clips ? Where did you see actors ? I thought they were clips of real life, everyday scenes in the 30's 40's, etc. Do you have any evidence that they were actors, to the extent that such a thing would counter what my earlier point was ?

So, did you make a mistake or were you just telling porkies. And don't you think the women, young and old, are just positivley gorgeous in those clips ? Boy, has womanhood regressed since this sexism / feminism albatross "around there neck was hung" (Colerigde)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are we focused on the appearance of women as a rebuttal for sexism?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sexism is about discrimination.
It's about viewing women as beneath men when it comes to a variety of issues.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Women are often judged on looks more than men.
As to their "value," I mean.

Another form of sexism, to be honest!

 

I'm kinda over this thread wegs, except to say that 'discrimination' is a word that means 'choice' .. more specifically, from Wordweb (based on Oxford Dict.)

The cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished.

It's only during recent years that it's been turned into a thought crime by the PC BS artists.

Reminds me of the word 'heresy' - that comes from the NT Greek 'eiresis' meaning .. choice. In fact, back then, 'na ehis eirisi' was simply 'to have choice'. But as we've discussed before, people take things and convolute them for their own purposes, as indeed, the Church of Rome did with this noble word.

edited - grammar

 

Comment deleted. Not worth explaining.

Sadly...many of the posts in this thread easily display why sexism still prevails.



Thanks for contributing, everyone.

 

Oh Wow. I got a brilliant idea here. Lets see. Hmmm...

So I am going to spend my youth fucking any women I can. Then when I get tired, I am going to marry a strong independent woman with a high paycheck. After the marriage we will pop a couple of babies. Then the loser wife will be slaving 40+ hours outside the house. Meanwhile I'll put the babies into daycare and relax on the couch, play golf with my buddies, drink to get high and bring all the sluts in the worlds in the house to fuck. A little bit of fooling around can never do any harm. However, no sex for the poor mama at all, haha. In 3-4 years, I'll plan up a no-fault divorce with my attorney. Obviously I'll dig up all hidden income or asset the wifey has. Then at the family court ruling I'll be eligible for the custody of children as primary caregiver (with good amount of brainwashing the children). On that basis, I'll be entitled to her house, and half her asset. On top of that she'll have to pay me alimony and child support for the next couple of decades. The loser will be kicked out of her house and pay her ass to me or go to jail. I cannot imagine how happy I'll be just thinking about it.

wegs, thank you so much for this idea. It would not have occurred to me without your post. (sarc)

 

Yes discrimination in a nice way . I would treat my brother in a different way as my sister . So I can talk to my father in a different way as with my mother . You treat a glass cup in a different way as a steel cup. With a man I will compete but with a woman I will not compete because is different category. I don't believe this is sexism . It become sexism when a woman starts to claim into male domain. A man will not claim sexism but a woman will complain discrimination and will call it sexism. We are both human same as I made a comparison a " cups "

 

Is that the modern man way of life ? But perhaps is that what modern women want .

 

arauca! Thank you. This, is what I was hopeful of when opening the thread. Your honesty is refreshing. It isn't designed to make women look stupid. You honestly view women as perhaps like "fine china." Delicate...perhaps easier to "break" than men. I'm not offended because truth be told...I don't want to be treated like a "steel cup" all of the time. I appreciate chivalry and have some old fashioned ideals, myself, when it comes to men and women. Sometimes, it is nice for a man to appreciate my femininity and yet still treat me as equal when it comes to my work. Or my intellect.

The only problem with how u may view things is if you are in a position of hiring employees for your company...you have to put aside some of these views.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is why not everyone should be in such roles.

I really appreciate you posting this; you did so with class!
That's cool in my book.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol um no, American women don't want to be with men like that.

But I'm not entertaining said poster who actually thinks that's what I meant in my above postings. :yawn:

 

Lol, American women. Nuff said.

 

"Smarter women have fewer children, researcher discovers"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10910740

Does that mean intelligence is passed down predominantly through the males in the population? It must if intelligence is a genetically passed on trait?

 

Good.

 

Why is that good? Are you pleased it frees them up to enter the workforce?

 

I'm one fuck away from being indifferent about "smart" womyn. The less they produce "smart" womyn, the less they spread misandry.

 

I read the article and was taken aback by its assertions. That doesn't mean I discount it. My question is...how is this determined? The article states that childhood IQ's are taken into account. That for those who had higher IQ's, those kids are more likely to become adults who do not wish to have children.

Perhaps that begs the question...is the comparison between a 'smart' woman and one of 'less' intelligence, being strictly determined by IQ?
If so, that is a flawed comparison. But, thanks for posting that article; it almost deserves a thread of its own to see others thoughts here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sounds a bit like an isolated case.

That has been the thing that has got to me a little - the continual portrayal of men as being stupid in TV adds. I think there were others complaining too recently. If women stood up and complained about sexism don't just turn that around and trash men now.

For some reason the majority must like seeing someone getting trashed. It is a bit like YouTube videos that go viral. What is the theme? - usually someone getting trashed. Is this an animal instinct coming through (pigs in a pen). We are supposed to be passed that now, heading our way to righteousness, giving up our animal instincts. It seems to take time!

 

I wholeheartedly agree about how men are being portrayed in commercials, sitcoms, etc. Like lost sheep who need a 'strong smart' woman to guide them, or they'd be lost.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, that bugs the hell out of me.

It's insulting to women, as well, I'll have you know. It implies that there is an agenda out there by women/for women, to 'settle' the score from years of oppression. THAT's not how you bring equality to the table.

But anyway!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Women do not do that.
Men like you do.

Regards
DL