xxoo Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Yes, I honestly believe that a woman's nature is one of nurturing and child bearing and raising families. Men naturally are builders, inventors, soldiers, dirty jobs, farming, earning the food and shelter. The hunters. Men are pigeon-holed all the time and I doubt any man "enjoys" working every day of his life, but he still has to do it. Even if the great majority of women are nuturing by nature, and do a decent job of keeping kids and home, there will always be some individual women who are horrible at it, fail miserably if they are forced to do it, grow depressed, and do other bad things. These same individuals may be happy and productive in a management job, or inventing, building, etc. Who are you to observe women as a whole, and decide what is best for an individual women? Or for an individual man, for that matter? Keep in mind that many jobs in the home require management and problem solving skills, while many jobs in the workforce require nurturing skills. The reality of skills and jobs is far more complex than you are presenting.
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Hey s4s, I just wanted to let you know I posted a response on the previous page that you may have missed when you justifiably took up the call to arms to defend against the sexist posts that espec10001 has made. Just so I'm not lumped in with the sexist view, I DO believe that men and women can be taught to perform the other gender's stereotypical roles. However, I feel they bring different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses to those tasks intrinsically based on their gender.
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Hey s4s, I just wanted to let you know I posted a response on the previous page that you may have missed when you justifiably took up the call to arms to defend against the sexist posts that espec10001 has made. Just so I'm not lumped in with the sexist view, I DO believe that men and women can be taught to perform the other gender's stereotypical roles. However, I feel they bring different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses to those tasks intrinsically based on their gender. I get that. I hope you understand that I was not saying your view was wrong. I get that you are saying you are a man in part by feeling protective of women. I'm just saying you feel that way not because you are a man, but because that is the kind of man you are. You could be a different kind of man, but a man just the same.
xxoo Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Just so I'm not lumped in with the sexist view, I DO believe that men and women can be taught to perform the other gender's stereotypical roles. However, I feel they bring different perspectives, strengths and weaknesses to those tasks intrinsically based on their gender. That's less offensive, but still sexist. It is sexist if you expect individuals to have specific perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses based on their gender. I am not arguing that certain perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses are not common among groups of men and women, however.
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 That's less offensive, but still sexist. It is sexist if you expect individuals to have specific perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses based on their gender. I am not arguing that certain perspectives, strengths, and weaknesses are not common among groups of men and women, however. Then I guess I'm a sexist by your standards.
Author espec10001 Posted April 14, 2010 Author Posted April 14, 2010 And in this way you discriminate against women who are not your opinion of "natural". Women who feel no desire to have children, wipe butt, or scrub toilets. You leave them with no options all because you can't handle their physical form being in the same office as you. Also, you shame men who have a sincere desire to work with kids or be the primary care giver to their children. It also hinders a man's ability to feel pride in doing so should he lose his job and care for his children till something comes along. You do not understand a man's view of women. Attractive women are looked upon as sex objects to men. You can hear them deny it, but it's the truth. When women start dressing modestly then I will start to respect them for what they can do and who they are. Until then, they are still a walking bag of contradictions.
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 You do not understand a man's view of women. Attractive women are looked upon as sex objects to men. You can hear them deny it, but it's the truth. When women start dressing modestly then I will start to respect them for what they can do and who they are. Until then, they are still a walking bag of contradictions. This is your choice, but it is not because you are a man. It isn't a man's view, it is your view. It is because of the kind of man you are. Couldn't you aspire to more? Such as learning to recognize they are people too with the same right to choose what to do with their life without your opinions interfering? So you find women to be objects; and? Not all objects belong to you or are they responsible for your actions.
A O Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Do you honestly believe ALL women are good at this? All women are strong in these skills, and enjoy this work? It doesn't have to be "all" this and "all" that. I could label you a lair because you don't tell the truth "all" the time. Its a churlish argument. It is relative however, women are more naturally inclined to these jobs than men. And in this way you discriminate against women who are not your opinion of "natural". Its not discrimination to have a view or a preference. It is discrimination to pick or force someone to do a certain task because of their gender. I'm not seeing the latter here. Women who feel no desire to have children, wipe butt, or scrub toilets. You leave them with no options all because you can't handle their physical form being in the same office as you. What kind of world do/did you live in to have such a pathetically low opinion of men I wonder.... Also, you shame men who have a sincere desire to work with kids or be the primary care giver to their children. It also hinders a man's ability to feel pride in doing so should he lose his job and care for his children till something comes along.To believe that one gender is better suited to certain roles does not equate to shaming the other if the wish to take them on. Even if the great majority of women are nuturing by nature, and do a decent job of keeping kids and home, there will always be some individual women who are horrible at it, fail miserably if they are forced to do it, grow depressed, and do other bad things. If one is "forced" to take on a role, then there's clearly bigger problems than gender politics at play here. Who are you to observe women as a whole, and decide what is best for an individual women? Or for an individual man, for that matter? We can and do decide what's best for us - men and women. What we can't do and I highly doubt that anyone here is advocating this, what we can't do is 'force' people to behave how we wish them too. I get that you are saying you are a man in part by feeling protective of women. As a man, its second nature to be protective towards women. It doesn't make me a man and it isn't the sort of man I am. Its the by-product of being a man! Then I guess I'm a sexist by your standards. Me too. I think that there's a few laws that would fall by the wayside if this type of thinking became vogue. Maybe not a bad thing that. Anyway, I have expectations, I have preferences, I prefer the beauty of a woman over a man for instance. What a sexist bastard aye... .
Author espec10001 Posted April 14, 2010 Author Posted April 14, 2010 This is your choice, but it is not because you are a man. It isn't a man's view, it is your view. It is because of the kind of man you are. Couldn't you aspire to more? Such as learning to recognize they are people too with the same right to choose what to do with their life without your opinions interfering? So you find women to be objects; and? Not all objects belong to you or are they responsible for your actions. Why do women continue to wear sexually attractive attire and then get upset when men are sexually attracted to them?
xxoo Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 You do not understand a man's view of women. Attractive women are looked upon as sex objects to men. You can hear them deny it, but it's the truth. When women start dressing modestly then I will start to respect them for what they can do and who they are. Until then, they are still a walking bag of contradictions. Believe what you have to believe about men, but this is your problem. Don't be surprised when the other men (and women) pass you by on the corporate ladder if you are too distracted by legs to focus and get the job done. In the end, it all comes down to self-discipline and focus. ***Why do women continue to wear sexually attractive attire and then get upset when men are sexually attracted to them? They are not upset about attraction. They are upset by inappropriate behavior.
xxoo Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 It doesn't have to be "all" this and "all" that. I could label you a lair because you don't tell the truth "all" the time. Its a churlish argument. It is relative however, women are more naturally inclined to these jobs than men. The fact that all men and all women are not alike is the whole argument! It doesn't matter if women or men are more naturally inclined to do a certain job, as a group. It only matters where the individual's skills, talents, and interests lie.
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Why do women continue to wear sexually attractive attire and then get upset when men are sexually attracted to them? I don't know what the women you are talking about are wearing. Does someone come by your place in the morning to make sure you wear whatever won't bother or distract others? How would you react to someone else dictating what you wear?
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 What kind of world do/did you live in to have such a pathetically low opinion of men I wonder.... Try to recognize that the behavior you are describing is the behavior of the person I was responding to and not necessarily the behavior I think all men have. Are you saying you find the behavior of espec10001 to be low? I didn't describe the behavior or suggest all men behave like espec10001 claims he does. He says that is his behavior and if you think it is low you will need to take that up with him rather than I. As a man, its second nature to be protective towards women. It doesn't make me a man and it isn't the sort of man I am. Its the by-product of being a man! If it is so, can you explain how protecting women is automatic response and second nature to men in the cases of rape or murder, or instances where men have stood by and done nothing when witnessing a man raping or murdering a woman? Are these men not still actually men? If a woman comes to the aid of a person being attacked - is she a man?
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 In the spirit of equality that you are espousing, I have taken the liberty to reword your quote by swapping out the genders. If it is so, can you explain how protecting men is automatic response and second nature to women in the cases of rape or murder, or instances where women have stood by and done nothing when witnessing a woman raping or murdering a man? Are these women not still actually women? If a man comes to the aid of a person being attacked - is he a woman? Does the quote still make sense? If not, why do you think it does not?
threebyfate Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I'll openly admit that I haven't read anything beyond the opening post so if I express anything that's already been states, my bad. The law of nature is that men and women aren't monogamous and we take what we want. Survival and reproduction are the only two forces that drive us. Beyond that, gender roles are societal creations, which are anathemas to the law of nature. As for patriarchy being a law of nature, take a look at chimpanzees, our closest biological relative. They have a matriarchal society...
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 In the spirit of equality that you are espousing, I have taken the liberty to reword your quote by swapping out the genders. Does the quote still make sense? If not, why do you think it does not? It makes sense to me because being someone who feels compelled to protect others is something both genders can choose to do. It is part of defining the kind of person you are. Not accepting the possibility that woman can serve and protect limits young girls ideas about the kind of woman they can choose to be and shames young boys who do not feel so compelled. All while they are still small and less capable of succeeding in any attempt. They carry that feeling into their adulthood and it can affect the choices they make once they are capable of challenging the ideal. No its not a clear cut case of cause and effect, but it is, like everything else, a possibility. And one that seems to often meet with opposition. If certain behaviors were to be intrinsically male or female, giving a try at placing the same standards of expectations we give one gender to both genders would prove it. So why do so many reject the idea of even testing it?
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I'll openly admit that I haven't read anything beyond the opening post so if I express anything that's already been states, my bad. The law of nature is that men and women aren't monogamous and we take what we want. Survival and reproduction are the only two forces that drive us. Beyond that, gender roles are societal creations, which are anathemas to the law of nature. As for patriarchy being a law of nature, take a look at chimpanzees, our closest biological relative. They have a matriarchal society... So you're saying that women's goal of eliminating "societal" gender definitions is a reflection of their aspirations to become like chimpanzees? Is this why you ladies fling so much poo on these boards?
threebyfate Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 So you're saying that women's goal of eliminating "societal" gender definitions is a reflection of their aspirations to become like chimpanzees? Is this why you ladies fling so much poo on these boards? Nope. I'm saying that you cannot use the law of nature to argue male and female traditional roles in current society.
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Nope. I'm saying that you cannot use the law of nature to argue male and female traditional roles in current society. Well since you didn't read the thread, I will give you a pass...but I've already discussed that my point of view has nothing to do with "male" & "female" roles. My point of view is that males and females intrinsically bring different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses to each of those roles.
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Well since you didn't read the thread, I will give you a pass...but I've already discussed that my point of view has nothing to do with "male" & "female" roles. My point of view is that males and females intrinsically bring different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses to each of those roles. As does each and every person of any gender. You will find different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses among women and different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses among men in any role you find them filling.
A O Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 The fact that all men and all women are not alike is the whole argument! No. You used an "all", absolute argument to negate espec10001 views. All women aren't good or do not enjoy such and such therefore his point is moot is basically what you're saying. But the context his views are usually used in centre around what women bring to the table, are naturally good at, verse what men do, are naturally inclined to do. Very sexist outlook I know, according to you, but nonetheless, one that plenty of people, if not most people, possess I'm sure. It doesn't matter if women or men are more naturally inclined to do a certain job, as a group. It only matters where the individual's skills, talents, and interests lie.Indeed. But some people, I see, can't entertain the thought of the former without believing that it won't impact in some way (probably in a negative manner) on the latter. Try to recognize that the behavior you are describing is the behavior of the person I was responding to and not necessarily the behavior I think all men have. I see Are you saying you find the behavior of espec10001 to be low? I didn't describe the behavior or suggest all men behave like espec10001 claims he does. He says that is his behavior and if you think it is low you will need to take that up with him rather than I. Nope, I took it from a men in general viewpoint rather than realizing that you were talking to an individual. If it is so, can you explain how protecting women is automatic response and second nature to men in the cases of rape or murder, or instances where men have stood by and done nothing when witnessing a man raping or murdering a woman? Are these men not still actually men? Given that both men and women rape and murder, that's right, rape as well, and that both also sit back and watch people doing these things without intervening, then I see these as human characteristics rather than gender specifics. None of these negate the natural instinct to protect. If a woman comes to the aid of a person being attacked - is she a man? More to the point, does this negate what men are naturally inclined to do, and furthermore, would women rather men suppress their natural inclination, which in its proper context is to protect women over men? I doubt if they would. .
threebyfate Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Well since you didn't read the thread, I will give you a pass...but I've already discussed that my point of view has nothing to do with "male" & "female" roles. My point of view is that males and females intrinsically bring different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses to each of those roles.That's fine, as long as individuals aren't kept in unbreakable stereotypical roles, when they display strengths that don't fit the stereotype. For example, myself. I'm an analyst by nature which historically and currently is a male dominated field. If you cardboard cut-out roles, then I wouldn't be able to analyse for a living and that wouldn't be acceptable.
A O Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Beyond that, gender roles are societal creations, which are anathemas to the law of nature. They weren't societal, they were environmental (nature). Now days we've bent the environment to suit ourselves which means that these roles definitely are societal. .
bayouboi Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 As does each and every person of any gender. You will find different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses among women and different perspectives, strengths & weaknesses among men in any role you find them filling. I find that the ability to frustrate me is limited to females. /thread
sally4sara Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 Given that both men and women rape and murder, that's right, rape as well, and that both also sit back and watch people doing these things without intervening, then I see these as human characteristics rather than gender specifics. None of these negate the natural instinct to protect. More to the point, does this negate what men are naturally inclined to do, and furthermore, would women rather men suppress their natural inclination, which in its proper context is to protect women over men? I doubt if they would. . Yes, I recognize women can commit rape as well. My point being that you can find instances of both genders protecting and both genders perpetrating crime or standing by while doing nothing when it happens. So how is protecting, harming, or allowing the harm of others a male or female quality? It seems all are human qualities. And all humans choose what qualities define them when out in each new situation. Even whatever quality they chose in one situation is subject to change if they find themselves in a similar situation. No amount of me questioning this indicates a preference of how men or women should act. I choose to protect because I think it to be the right thing to do, not because I am a woman or in spite of my not being a man.
Recommended Posts