Forums - Politics Discussion - 97 Advantages of being female

Lawlight said:
sethnintendo said:

Men that sleep with a lot of women = studs.  Women that sleep with a lot of guys = sluts. 

Men get paid more than women for the same job and usually are given more opportunity for advancement. 

We don't have periods.

We have women make our sandwiches.


I have no idea how people come to the "same job" argument. Plenty of men do the same job but get different pay. Does it take into consideration experience and seniority when these studies are made? 2 people can have the same role but the number of hours out in, experience, seniority and productivity could be different.

 

What about men who can't get laid vs. women who can't get laid? One is a loser (like a poster in this thread said) and the other is pure.

The only other people calling a man who can't get laid a loser are most likely other men. It's also something that doesn't need to be disclosed with other people so that's a really weak example of a male disadvantage. Yes there are obviously advantages to both genders but this list completely missed any of them even with having 97 examples. 

There should have been an immediate red flag as soon as everyone saw the first example was about how men couldn't hit a woman. Instead you'd rather defend against women feeling safe leaving an establishment after hours...



Around the Network

They forgot one in the Male Privilege:

47. In many countries, I'm much less likely to be aborted by my parents if they know I'm going to be a boy. And if my parents don't find out that I'm a boy until after I'm born, I'm much less likely to be given up for adoption.



But they also forgot one in the Female Privilege:

98. If I'm gay, I'm far less likely to be ostracized for my sexual orientation. In fact, if my female partner and I are both attractive, we might even be encouraged to share our sexual experiences.



hollabackenny said:
Lawlight said:


I have no idea how people come to the "same job" argument. Plenty of men do the same job but get different pay. Does it take into consideration experience and seniority when these studies are made? 2 people can have the same role but the number of hours out in, experience, seniority and productivity could be different.

 

What about men who can't get laid vs. women who can't get laid? One is a loser (like a poster in this thread said) and the other is pure.

The only other people calling a man who can't get laid a loser are most likely other men. It's also something that doesn't need to be disclosed with other people so that's a really weak example of a male disadvantage. Yes there are obviously advantages to both genders but this list completely missed any of them even with having 97 examples. 

There should have been an immediate red flag as soon as everyone saw the first example was about how men couldn't hit a woman. Instead you'd rather defend against women feeling safe leaving an establishment after hours...


So i guess that logic throws the slut argument out the window.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:

Metroid33slayer said:

4. Women have the right to be assumed (competent) caregivers for children



4. Blame biology.

How is this reply not sexist? Being a competent caregiver is minimally biological. There are many men who can take care of their children better than many women. 

How is nature not sexist.
But true, certainly plenty men can take better care of their children than the natural mother. However, out of experience, the worst for young kids is indecisiveness and long procedures. Even worse is when the kids become pawns or bargaining chips in the divorce procedure. In the case where both seem competent I'm fine with given the woman priority at first, and sort it out after the divorce is settled.
Of course when the kids are old enough they already have a say, and when there is doubt child protective services investigates.

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.



Around the Network
jamesmarkus87 said:
But they also forgot one in the Female Privilege:

98. If I'm gay, I'm far less likely to be ostracized for my sexual orientation. In fact, if my female partner and I are both attractive, we might even be encouraged to share our sexual experiences.


You mean "more"?

Sorry, forgot that the term "gay" also applies to women.

Good point. Thought of it while reading this thread as well. Like a lesbian couple can hold hands in public and be quite affectionate without anyone beating them up or raising any eyebrows. Same can't be said for male couples.

But not only that. Straight men constantly feel the pressure to be manly around their friends. Any close conduct and you're "accused" to be gay. There was even an article about Ronaldo and his best friend being too affectionate and saying they may even be gay. They even suggested that that was affecting his performance. Same with a guy from One direction and another singer (ed Sheeran?). Apparently straight guys can't spend too much time together. We may think it's silly but for people whose career depends on people's perception of them, that's a pretty big deal.



SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
SvennoJ said:



4. Blame biology.

How is this reply not sexist? Being a competent caregiver is minimally biological. There are many men who can take care of their children better than many women. 

How is nature not sexist.
But true, certainly plenty men can take better care of their children than the natural mother. However, out of experience, the worst for young kids is indecisiveness and long procedures. Even worse is when the kids become pawns or bargaining chips in the divorce procedure. In the case where both seem competent I'm fine with given the woman priority at first, and sort it out after the divorce is settled.
Of course when the kids are old enough they already have a say, and when there is doubt child protective services investigates.


Very egalitarian



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

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.



DonFerrari said:

And I didn't say a men couldn't do that. Just that the guy said women that don't work don't have leisure life and light housework as if it's impossible.

I always find it funny when people misrepresent what I say, and then complain when someone then misrepresents what they say.

I pointed out the choice of language. I didn't suggest that it's impossible, or anywhere near it, for someone to have a life filled with nothing but light housework. What I did was point out that the author of that list implied that, by nature, housewives live lives of leisure while doing nothing but a bit of light housework. I can say with confidence that this is not an accurate description of the typical experience of a housewife.

Not to mention that there's absolutely nothing stopping the exact same thing happening in the other direction - there are plenty of "house husbands", and they're just as capable of not doing a lot of housework.



That is completely true, but they get less respect then the males in a lot of areas as well, women also have the luxury of getting harrasments everywhere they go etc etc. When you brought up this, you pissed off a lot of females, even though they have these advantages etc, they need to fit the fascism of beauty. Males and females will never be equal because people are never equal to people and ugly are never equal with beauty.

 

The world is a survival of the fittest and no matter how much we try to correct that, it will never change that rule, we all just need to do what we need to do to survive, especially since we can't live without the world we have adjusted to either, so even if we wanted a better society, our addiction will burn it



 

PSN: Opticstrike90
Steam: opticstrike90