By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 97 Advantages of being female

DonFerrari on 10 December 2015
naruball said:
o_O.Q said:


why does the sexualisation of women in the media ( like the recent case of r mika in street fighter ) and not men have to stop? because apparently women are weaker than men and can't handle depictions of more attractive members of their gender even though men put up with it

I don't think sexualization of men and women is the same. In one case you have a character wearing clothes that are incredibly unconfortable for combat or boobs defying physics, both of which I find absolutely embarrassing. I don't think we get close ups of men's bulges, just shirtless scenes at best. Even the rare naked scenes are clearly meant to be a joke and I doubt anyone would get aroused by them. This whole fan-service makes me, personally, uncomfortable to play certain games like Persona 4:G which other than that was great.

It's just because of marketability... women don't get interested the same as men on clad clothes of the other sex and at the same time aren't as offended bu this cloth on the same sex.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
sc94597 on 10 December 2015
SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
 

Because how qualified a parent is depends on much more than natural sex and/or gender. If the roles were reversed and women were not afforded a right because of "nature" or the perception thereof would you be defending your claim? Should women, for example, not be hired in computer science or engineering because they are naturally predisposed not to be interested in their fields on average, and might not perform up to task? Individualism is key here. Sex and/or gender does not determine competency on the individual level.

Computer science is not a part of our genetic make up. Assuming women are naturally predisposed not to be interested in beta sciences is pretty sexist as well ;) How much of that predisposition is nature or nurture or simply different priorities in life is still up for debate. However nurturing children has been a primary role for the mother's side passed on through genetics. I'm talking early motherhood here, newborns bonded to the mother long before birth, still getting to know the father after birth.  If both are competent then assigning an infant to the father as a male right is pretty stupid. So yeah, women have that right because of nature.

Now at what point that right should stop, I don't know. Before the kids have a legal right to decide, but definitely not in the first months after birth.

Who said anything about genetics? I said "nature" which is as much epigenetics, and development as it is genetics. And I also never implied that it was my personal belief (I believe there is a natural component, but also a social component.) Statistically women are less interested in computer science and engineering. This is not an assumption, this is an empirical fact. It is sexist, however, to let that statistic inform your decisions when dealing with individuals. I am able to distinguish between a tendency of a group and the capabilities/interest of an individual. You, on the other-hand think that people should be distinguished because their group has a tendency that isn't the same as another group (i.e men are less nurturing on average therefore the child should go to the mother.) Also since there is no evidence that children who grow up without a mom have any serious impediments, I really don't see how you can assume that a child can't be nurtured with just the father alone, or as the primary parent. A child can. The child should go to whomever is MORE competent. And if the parents are equally competent, then custody is split equally. That is fair, and egalitarian. Anything else is sexist. 

Edit: I will use a more similar analogy. Should women be prevented from partaking in combat roles in militaries because they are naturally weaker (physically) than men? If a man and a woman are equally strong should they only accept the man over the woman because he has more potential that he might not reach? I don't think that should be the case.  

Edit 2: Another analogy. An employer decides to not hire a woman because she might get pregnant. Is it not sexist to say, "it is only natural?" 



DonFerrari on 10 December 2015
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
 

Because how qualified a parent is depends on much more than natural sex and/or gender. If the roles were reversed and women were not afforded a right because of "nature" or the perception thereof would you be defending your claim? Should women, for example, not be hired in computer science or engineering because they are naturally predisposed not to be interested in their fields on average, and might not perform up to task? Individualism is key here. Sex and/or gender does not determine competency on the individual level.

Computer science is not a part of our genetic make up. Assuming women are naturally predisposed not to be interested in beta sciences is pretty sexist as well ;) How much of that predisposition is nature or nurture or simply different priorities in life is still up for debate. However nurturing children has been a primary role for the mother's side passed on through genetics. I'm talking early motherhood here, newborns bonded to the mother long before birth, still getting to know the father after birth.  If both are competent then assigning an infant to the father as a male right is pretty stupid. So yeah, women have that right because of nature.

Now at what point that right should stop, I don't know. Before the kids have a legal right to decide, but definitely not in the first months after birth.

Who said anything about genetics? I said "nature" which is as much epigenetics, and development as it is genetics. And I also never implied that it was my personal belief (I believe there is a natural component, but also a social component.) Statistically women are less interested in computer science and engineering. This is not an assumption, this is an empirical fact. It is sexist, however, to let that statistic inform your decisions when dealing with individuals. I am able to distinguish between a tendency of a group and the capabilities/interest of an individual. You, on the other-hand think that people should be distinguished because their group has a tendency that isn't the same as another group (i.e men are less nurturing on average therefore the child should go to the mother.) Also since there is no evidence that children who grow up without a mom have any serious impediments, I really don't see how you can assume that a child can't be nurtured with just the father alone, or as the primary parent. A child can. The child should go to whomever is MORE competent. And if the parents are equally competent, then custody is split equally. That is fair, and egalitarian. Anything else is sexist. 

Edit: I will use a more similar analogy. Should women be prevented from partaking in combat roles in militaries because they are naturally weaker (physically) than men? If a man and a woman are equally strong should they only accept the man over the woman because he has more potential that he might not reach? I don't think that should be the case.  

Feminism graph.

Man is superior to woman in a specific subject -> Sexist, social construction
Woman is superior to man in a specific subject -> Genetics, obvious, woman is better.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

TruckOSaurus on 10 December 2015
naruball said:
rolltide101x said:

Keeping up a house is EXTREMELY easy if you do not have kids. If they do have kids then that point is not true

 

OT: The majority of those are accurate. But women do have a disadvantage in the work place, anyone who does not believe that is wrong. Sexism is much larger issue than racism in the U.S. imo

Not everywhere. I'll give you an example. One of my lecturers was working at my university for a couple of years, but didn't have a permanent job. As soon as there was an opening for a permant job in my department, she applied for it and got it fair and square (she was really good).

The next year she was pregnant. Lovely news, but a shame that she couldn't teach for either semester.

Next year she was pregnant again! Lovely news, but somehow she was pregnant just around the same time, so no way she could teach in either semester.

The year after that she got pregnant once more. And what an incredible coincidence. At a time that she couldn't teach either the first or the second semester. So, since she got the permanent job she has yet to teach. I don't know if next year she'll happen to be pregnant again, but she gets paid as much as everyone else and can focus on her research while others have to teach and mark thousands of exams and essays.

She also gets paid the same amount of money every other lecturer with the same years working at that uni.

I don't see how a man could have similar treatment or how she's being at a disadvantage. Now if she doesn't get a promotion to Senior Lecturer, would you blame the department?

Sure some people abuse the system. It's true of men and women (not sure if it's the case in that particular story).

One big disadvantage women have is that they usually have to make a choice between furthering their career or having a family. Men can manage to have both much more easily. Being on maternity leave will set them back a year (maybe more) as like you said promotions aren't handed out to people who aren't present.



Signature goes here!

xenogears1234 on 10 December 2015
slab_of_bacon said:
I can't make it through this whole list... nor should I have to. Did someone just go through a separation? I'm not sure where this need to distinguish differences between the sexes, let alone maintain a misogynic tone throughout came from.

If you did indeed break up with someone recently, might I suggest a bottle of whiskey and a friend.

Thats what i get out of these lists/articles it just seems like this dude who wrote this, is a entitled butthurt crybaby making excuses for his own inadequacies as a man.



Around the Network
Arminillo on 10 December 2015

Shadow1980 said:


You do not have the right to go through life without being exposed to images, concepts, and ideas that offend you.

 

The best TL;DR you'll ever see.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


o_O.Q on 10 December 2015
naruball said:
o_O.Q said:


why does the sexualisation of women in the media ( like the recent case of r mika in street fighter ) and not men have to stop? because apparently women are weaker than men and can't handle depictions of more attractive members of their gender even though men put up with it

I don't think sexualization of men and women is the same. In one case you have a character wearing clothes that are incredibly unconfortable for combat or boobs defying physics, both of which I find absolutely embarrassing. I don't think we get close ups of men's bulges, just shirtless scenes at best. Even the rare naked scenes are clearly meant to be a joke and I doubt anyone would get aroused by them. This whole fan-service makes me, personally, uncomfortable to play certain games like Persona 4:G which other than that was great.

 

i wasn't just talking about video games... there are also situations like these 

https://www.change.org/p/proteinworld-arjun-seth-remove-are-you-beach-body-ready-advertisements

"I don't think we get close ups of men's bulges"

we don't get close ups of women's crotches either unless you are equating the male crotch area to the female chest?

we do get close ups of males chests

the thing is i understand that there is a difference mainly because men are more susceptible to visual sexual stimulation



naruball on 10 December 2015
o_O.Q said:

 

"I don't think we get close ups of men's bulges"

we don't get close ups of women's crotches either unless you are equating the male crotch area to the female chest?

we do get close ups of males chests

the thing is i understand that there is a difference mainly because men are more susceptible to visual sexual stimulation

Oh, come on now. The real reason is what Donferrari said, i.e. marketability.



Porcupine_I on 10 December 2015

I only read the first few to realize this is not about being female but about being a women globally in the US



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

naruball on 10 December 2015
TruckOSaurus said:
 

Sure some people abuse the system. It's true of men and women (not sure if it's the case in that particular story).

One big disadvantage women have is that they usually have to make a choice between furthering their career or having a family. Men can manage to have both much more easily. Being on maternity leave will set them back a year (maybe more) as like you said promotions aren't handed out to people who aren't present.

That's somewhat true, but on the flip side, women get to spend time with their new born, while in most countries (I heard that's not the case for Denmark) there is no paternity leave. So for fathers who have to work crazy hours, they not only get to see their infants much less, but they're probably also too tired to enjoy their moments with them.

Also, keep in mind that adoption is also an option for most (straight) couples. That way a woman would have to sacrifice her career as much as her husband.

But yes, overall, I agree, they are at a disavantage when it comes to that. My point is that while a lot of women (feminists or not) will remind you of that every now and then, I've yet to see a guy complain about being under pressure to provide for his family more than his wife or about being unable to spend as much time with his child as his wife does. If someone wants to be fair, they can't dismiss one and focus on the other (on what affects them only).

In other words, all I'm saying is that both sexes are at a disadvatange in some way but as a society we seem to focus almost exclusively on the issues that women face and only try to fix those.