Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Chief]

Now the cheering on of the teenager is simply men saying/thinking sh*& I wish that would happen to me/lucky bastard etc etc. While completely ignoring the fact that these are children of limited maturity and development.

Do you think that this is the sort of thing feminists are generally for or against?

 

[Run n Spread]

Do you think that this is the sort of thing feminists are generally for or against?

Not quite sure what you mean. Although they are conspicous by their silence. Look if feminism/as per the original suffragette movement was about equal rights and standards then most would be disgusted by the conduct. Yet today it seems more like a Political Party where decisions are made on the basis of expediency so I'd expect justifications/equivocations/ men have had it easy for so long etc etc. As though that's somehow relevant to 2015 and these specific cases.

 

[romeoh]

A lot of people say that and it simply a case of projection. As in they are applying their standards of their world view to something entirely different.

To offer a blunt explanation: In most relationships/encounters/meeting, approach etc etc women hold the upper hand and are the arbitrators if you will of the course of a relationship whether sex occurs etc etc. Or to be it simply sex for men can be hard to come by where most women have no shortage of offers so men find themselves at a distnct disadvantage.

Now the cheering on of the teenager is simply men saying/thinking sh*& I wish that would happen to me/lucky bastard etc etc. While completely ignoring the fact that these are children of limited maturity and development. Having a relationship with a teacher/someone in that position of power is a gross breach of trust and could do irreparable psychological harm. They are not adults.

And while prison is an unbelievably harsh punishment for anyone I would say this case probably warranted it.

What are you basing these assumptions on?

 

[Chief]

Not quite sure what you mean.

The idea that a young bloke is not affected by this sort of thing generally arises from a distinctly non-feminist point of view.

I think you're mistaking consideration of the perpetrator's situation for the blokey attitude that the male child isn't appreciably harmed.

Trivialisation of the crime does not come from any sort of feminist perspective. Feminism is your ally here, not the problem.

 

[Run n Spread]

What are you basing these assumptions on?

Observation, experience, evolution and biology. At it's simplest point men tend to approach women, not the other way round.

 

[romeoh]

Observation, experience, evolution and biology. At it's simplest point men tend to approach women, not the other way round.

Rightio- not sure how you can invoke biology and evolution here -so just your opinion then. Carry on.

 

[Run n Spread]

Rightio- not sure how you can invoke biology and evolution here -so just your opinion then. Carry on.

Biology in the sense women are generally attracted to men with status, wealth etc. All of which are hard to obtain. That's what I base my opinion on combined with experience and observation. And you're right it is simply my personal opinion matters jack sh&* in the overall scheme of things really. Play on.

 

[romeoh]

Biology in the sense women are generally attracted to men with status, wealth etc. All of which are hard to obtain. That's what I base my opinion on combined with experience and observation. And you're right it is simply my personal opinion matters jack sh&* in the overall scheme of things really. Play on.

Yep but if you are classifying 'women are attracted to men with status'.. as biology, think you are on shaky ground!

 

[Run n Spread]

Yep but if you are classifying 'women are attracted to men with status'.. as biology, think you are on shaky ground!

Status in the context of the modern world. I suppose biologically you'd put it as men who can provide. Men can demonstrate that through strength (catch the bear, hunt more easily, possessions -provide for her and any future children, warrior-defeat others prove you are better than the comp). Harder to measure today but I suppose wealth, money and job are the criteria (so what do you do? Where do you live? Rent or Buy? etc etc).

At it's simplest men are attracted to beauty and fertility, women for men with strength and an ability to provide. Either way like a say just my opinion (which like anyone forms over many criteria and factors). Maybe others opinions are different whatever. Each to their own.

 

[Generalissimo]

Saw this interesting hypothetical that further discredits the "gender wage gap" today:

Imagine you have a workforce of 100 men and 100 women spread across 3 occupations.

Occupation A has 50 male workers earning $100 and 10 female workers earning $110.
Occupation B has 40 male workers earning $50 and 40 female workers earning $55.
Occupation C has 10 male workers earning $30 and 50 female workers earning $33.

In each job, the women earn 10% more than the men. But if you take the average earnings of the men, you get $73 compared to the average women's earnings of $49.50. You could misrepresent this as women earning less than 70% of what a man makes when in reality they make 10% more.

This is an interesting argument. I think it is equivalent to Simpson's paradox. There are two ways of interpreting this data. You could say that women are predominantly in low-paying jobs and men are in high-paying jobs. Or you could say that, at every occupation we looked at, women were paid more than men.

Of course, both conclusions are correct and do not conflict.

 

[tesseract]

To offer a blunt explanation: In most relationships/encounters/meeting, approach etc etc women hold the upper hand and are the arbitrators if you will of the course of a relationship whether sex occurs etc etc. Or to be it simply sex for men can be hard to come by where most women have no shortage of offers so men find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

Women can get sex at the drop of a hat from many a man. It takes no effort on women's part to get sex when they want it. For women, it's about who they do it with. Women only go sexless if they're picky and/or think more of themselves than they are. This is why women are called sluts by both men and women if they do the rounds.

Men, on the other hand, face a tougher proposition if they just want sex. Women don't have a male mindset when it comes to sex. Most women don't give it up at the drop of a hat. Men have to work for their notches, hence why they've been known to be called studs when they bag more than a few.

Women seek commitment from a man with status above their own, wealth, utility and good looks - this is female hypergamy.

Dalrock has an excellent blog discussing hypergamy and sexual and marriage marketplace value in men and women, among other topics.

 

[Chief]

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

Women can get sex at the drop of a hat from many a man. It takes no effort on women's part to get sex when they want it. For women, it's about who they do it with. Women only go sexless if they're picky and/or think more of themselves than they are. This is why women are called sluts by both men and women if they do the rounds.

Men, on the other hand, face a tougher proposition if they just want sex. Women don't have a male mindset when it comes to sex. Most women don't give it up at the drop of a hat. Men have to work for their notches, hence why they've been known to be called studs when they bag more than a few.

Women seek commitment from a man with status above their own, wealth, utility and good looks - this is female hypergamy.

Dalrock has an excellent blog discussing hypergamy and sexual and marriage marketplace value in men and women, among other topics.

What is Satan's role in this?

 

[Furbicide]

Women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment.

Women can get sex at the drop of a hat from many a man. It takes no effort on women's part to get sex when they want it. For women, it's about who they do it with. Women only go sexless if they're picky and/or think more of themselves than they are. This is why women are called sluts by both men and women if they do the rounds.

Men, on the other hand, face a tougher proposition if they just want sex. Women don't have a male mindset when it comes to sex. Most women don't give it up at the drop of a hat. Men have to work for their notches, hence why they've been known to be called studs when they bag more than a few.

Women seek commitment from a man with status above their own, wealth, utility and good looks - this is female hypergamy.

Dalrock has an excellent blog discussing hypergamy and sexual and marriage marketplace value in men and women, among other topics.

Why the insistence on generalisations? This is just "Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus" rubbish. The real issue here is socialised gender roles and the consequences for people who don't live up to them.

 

[tesseract]

Why the insistence on generalisations? This is just "Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus" rubbish. The real issue here is socialised gender roles and the consequences for people who don't live up to them.

The generalization rings true because it's the nature of men and women. What I posted had nothing to do with gender roles.

Socialized gender roles isn't an issue if people have freewill to choose how they wish to live their lives. People already have freewill to choose a different path than merely following the majority and/or what traditionalists expect of them due to their sex. There's always going to be resistance to going a different way. Expecting there to be no resistance is both idealistic and unrealistic. Folks who choose a different path from the traditionalist norm just need to deal with it, for you can't please everyone.

 

[kfc1]

There's always going to be resistance to going a different way. Expecting there to be no resistance is both idealistic and unrealistic.

No finer example of this being true is the attitudes towards MGTOW.

 

[tesseract]

No finer example of this being true is the attitudes towards MGTOW.

It's exactly what I had in mind when I posted that comment. I'm glad you thought of that example too.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

With all due respect, why are those promoting this MGTOW/anti-feminist stuff such reclusive, wilting effeminate boys who theorise on the internet?

And how does this portrayal of Paul Elam match up with a robust and independent view of masculinity?

 

[Furbicide]

The generalization rings true because it's the nature of men and women. What I posted had nothing to do with gender roles.

Socialized gender roles isn't an issue if people have freewill to choose how they wish to live their lives. People already have freewill to choose a different path than merely following the majority and/or what traditionalists expect of them due to their sex. There's always going to be resistance to going a different way. Expecting there to be no resistance is both idealistic and unrealistic. Folks who choose a different path from the traditionalist norm just need to deal with it, for you can't please everyone.

Modern neuroscience suggests that free will doesn't actually exist; but even if it did, you're misunderstanding it. Even if you believe we have complete choice in what we do with our lives, the fact is that we can never escape the social construction of our personalities.

That is, if socialisation turns you into a he-man whose primary goal in life is appearing masculine, most of your choices will be in service of that goal. You can have all the free will in the world, and it's not going to make you put on a frock unless you already have a desire to. Where does that desire come from? We know that we're at least 50% socialised, so clearly gender roles are having a pretty significant effect on the way we behave.

Anyway, I'm personally grateful that gender roles have shifted so much in the last 100 years. It actually helps me relate to women better, and makes me a better father, too. It's particularly good if you're a man and want to do "women's work" like teaching; and vice versa if you're a woman and you want to do "man's work" like ... well, anything that makes a lot of money.

 

[tesseract]

Modern neuroscience suggests that free will doesn't actually exist; but even if it did, you're misunderstanding it. Even if you believe we have complete choice in what we do with our lives, the fact is that we can never escape the social construction of our personalities.

That is, if socialisation turns you into a he-man whose primary goal in life is appearing masculine, most of your choices will be in service of that goal. You can have all the free will in the world, and it's not going to make you put on a frock unless you already have a desire to. Where does that desire come from? We know that we're at least 50% socialised, so clearly gender roles are having a pretty significant effect on the way we behave.

"Modern neuroscience suggests that free will doesn't actually exist"? If that's the case, any mind-numbingly stupid thought can be passed off as academic thought. I hope these neuroscientists are good at flipping burgers.

I'm not misunderstanding freewill at all. I understand we, as humans, have our personalities made up from knowledge and experience. People can be socialized and retain their freewill. We're not automatons who simply become socialized - programmed - and retain no ability to change course through conscious, rational, will. If we didn't retain our freewill after socialization has occurred, each ethnicity would be a largely homogenous group of people when it comes to beliefs. We can see that's not the case.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

The idea that a young bloke is not affected by this sort of thing generally arises from a distinctly non-feminist point of view.

I think you're mistaking consideration of the perpetrator's situation for the blokey attitude that the male child isn't appreciably harmed.

Trivialisation of the crime does not come from any sort of feminist perspective. Feminism is your ally here, not the problem.

Distinct non-feminist view? A oxymoronic statement if their ever was one.

There isn't a whole lot within the feminist dialectic about the potential victimisation of boys by women, nor about females socialising boys into violence.

Similarly Feminism has little time for the situation of male perpetrators. So why would have have time for female perpetrators?




Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Modern neuroscience suggests that free will doesn't actually exist; but even if it did, you're misunderstanding it. Even if you believe we have complete choice in what we do with our lives, the fact is that we can never escape the social construction of our personalities.

That is, if socialisation turns you into a he-man whose primary goal in life is appearing masculine, most of your choices will be in service of that goal. You can have all the free will in the world, and it's not going to make you put on a frock unless you already have a desire to. Where does that desire come from? We know that we're at least 50% socialised, so clearly gender roles are having a pretty significant effect on the way we behave.

Anyway, I'm personally grateful that gender roles have shifted so much in the last 100 years. It actually helps me relate to women better, and makes me a better father, too. It's particularly good if you're a man and want to do "women's work" like teaching; and vice versa if you're a woman and you want to do "man's work" like ... well, anything that makes a lot of money.

Sure socialisation perhaps singularly the largest contributor to a persons self. Genes are important but they struggle to escape their immediate surroundings.

The problem with socialisation is it can't be quantified and the balance and weight given to particular events, parental factors, education ect... Can't be easily quantified at either an individual level, nor at a societal level.

The last part is a nonsense. Teaching is only women's work because they've come to dominate the field at the expense of men, and to the detriment of the development of children more broadly.

Some would argue Women go into teaching because gender essentialism drives them to be carers. Others would argue they go into teaching due to a "socialised" lack of male "or higher" ambition.



Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Eastern Rangers]

What are you basing these assumptions on?

Darwins law of intersexual selection?


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[romeoh]

Darwins law of intersexual selection?


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

For a scarab beetle?

 

[WeetBixKid]

Why the insistence on generalisations? This is just "Men are from Mars/Women are from Venus" rubbish. The real issue here is socialised gender roles and the consequences for people who don't live up to them.

Hormones make men stronger than women. They make our bodies develop in fairly significantly different ways. There are exceptions, but this is a pretty safe assumption to make - men are stronger than women.

How can we expect the mind to be immune from this process? It doesn't exist in a vacuum during puberty. It's part of the dance - in fact a major part. Hormones affect the brain.

Saying gender roles are all due to socialisation makes about as much sense as saying differences in strength are too.

 

[kfc1]

Statistics are interesting. According to the ABS, approx 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted since the age of 15. Its almost impossible for that figure to go down as it is not a dataset that refreshes each year (e.g. number of deaths due to DV)