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

Forums - Politics Discussion - 97 Advantages of being female

SvennoJ on 10 December 2015
sc94597 said:

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?" 

Statistics don't show cause. As I said it's still up to debate where the lower interest comes from.

As for why an infant should go to the mother, is not because she is more competent by default, it is because the infant is attached to the mother from long before birth. Seperating a young infant from the mother is not the best way to go imo. Therefore when both are competent, the mother should get priority. Ofcourse if the parents are civilized enough that they can share custody without hostility then that's the way to go. However that's usually not the case during breakups. After things have settled shared custody can always be arranged.

I would think the military has certain tests you need to pass for certain roles. Nothing to do with potential. My wife deals better with sleep deprivation and pain, 2 things the military can use pretty well. Muscle strength isn't everything.

Why is pregnancy such a big deal when hiring? Not all women get sick and need a lot of time off.
I'm not a fan of forcing employers to hire certain candidates. For politics, yes that sector should be a reflection of society. For the private sector best man/women for the job should be the deciding factor. Of course favoritism always plays a role. That's the problem with society, it's run by humans.



Around the Network
pokoko on 10 December 2015
Shadow1980 said:
pokoko said:

And there is the problem.  That list is awful but there are many legitimate issues of inequality towards men and boys that should be recognized and discussed but are instead shoved aside because of the "uh but men had it better for a long time" attitudes.  It's sad and ridiculous and it's making things worse rather than better but still we get the same old excuses.  Boys are doing worse in English than girls in Math?  Who cares about the damage to society now because men had it better in the past.  A 17 year old boy gets a much harsher penalty than a 17 year old girl for the same crime?  He should be thankful for the the chance to be treated unfairly.

Rather than deal with all the problems, why is it that we're just supposed to deal with some of them and call it even?  I will never, ever understand that mentality.

There are some instances of gender disparities negatively affecting men more so than women, and they do deserve attention regardless of the fact that males utterly dominated Western society until very recently. Men do tend to get longer/harsher sentences than women for the same crime, and that's not right. But is that part of a systemic and proactive anti-male bias in the justice system, or is there something else more prosaic at work? A commenter on an article about this subject had this to say:

I read all of that, though I'm not sure what most of it had to do with what I said.  Videogames are a lesser issue by far.  Honestly, though, I don't really understand the purpose of those old rationalizations and excuses and why they are applied with such an obvious double standard.  Inequality that favors men?  Evil patriarchy's fault and it needs to be changed.  Inequality that favors women?  Well, that's a result of patriarchy, so it's okay, no reason to do anything about it.  It's always the same.  Marginalize, brush aside, disparage, blame the victim in the most sideways way possible, trot the justifications out, and then one day, when its a full-blown problem, ask why something wasn't done sooner.  

Why is one set of problems considered and discussed but the other is met with terms like "manosphere" (I don't even know what that is)?  Why can't both be addressed?  Why the rush to discredit anything that might affect men or boys in a negative way?  Why short-change the future because of the past?  The truth is, I suppose, that people really aren't thinking about improving society for everyone, they just want to further the cause they've hooked on with, which often includes a free set of blinders.



o_O.Q on 10 December 2015
Shadow1980 said:
pokoko said:

I read all of that, though I'm not sure what most of it had to do with what I said.  Videogames are a lesser issue by far.

It is a lesser issue, but it does come up a lot on forums like this, and though I do sometimes go off on tangents it is a related issue because even small issues reflect overall attitudes of both sides in the "debate."

Honestly, though, I don't really understand the purpose of those old rationalizations and excuses and why they are applied with such an obvious double standard.  Inequality that favors men?  Evil patriarchy's fault and it needs to be changed.  Inequality that favors women?  Well, that's a result of patriarchy, so it's okay, no reason to do anything about it.  It's always the same.  Marginalize, brush aside, disparage, blame the victim in the most sideways way possible, trot the justifications out, and then one day, when its a full-blown problem, ask why something wasn't done sooner.

There's an difference between explaining something and excusing it. Also, the understand the present one needs to look at the past. Old prejudices don't simply disappear when new laws are passed, after all. In any case, I agree that there are no excuses for any inequalities, regardless of which gender, race, religion, etc., they affect. But I'm not convinced like MRAs are that the inequalities that negatively effect men are part of some "evil feminist matriarchy," either.

Why is one set of problems considered and discussed but the other is met with terms like "manosphere" (I don't even know what that is)?

It's a neologism for the various internet-based men's activists groups, anti-feminists, pick-up artists, and assorted misogynists. See here for more info, or if you want the snarkier version, try here.

Why can't both be addressed?  Why the rush to discredit anything that might affect men or boys in a negative way?  Why short-change the future because of the past?  The truth is, I suppose, that people really aren't thinking about improving society for everyone, they just want to further the cause they've hooked on with, which often includes a free set of blinders.

And both sides have plenty of people that are guilty of simply trying to grind an ideological axe that actually trying to advance equality under the law. Many feminists do care more about sexualized depictions of women in media than they do about equal rights. Many if not most MRAs care more about fighting feminism than they do about equal rights. Like I said, I actually do care about equality under the law, that all people deserve equal rights, bear equal responsibilities, and should expect equal punishment for committing the same crimes.




", I actually do care about equality under the law, that all people deserve equal rights"

 

in what legal situation are women unequal to men?



DonFerrari on 10 December 2015
SvennoJ said:
sc94597 said:
 

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?" 

Statistics don't show cause. As I said it's still up to debate where the lower interest comes from.

As for why an infant should go to the mother, is not because she is more competent by default, it is because the infant is attached to the mother from long before birth. Seperating a young infant from the mother is not the best way to go imo. Therefore when both are competent, the mother should get priority. Ofcourse if the parents are civilized enough that they can share custody without hostility then that's the way to go. However that's usually not the case during breakups. After things have settled shared custody can always be arranged.

I would think the military has certain tests you need to pass for certain roles. Nothing to do with potential. My wife deals better with sleep deprivation and pain, 2 things the military can use pretty well. Muscle strength isn't everything.

Why is pregnancy such a big deal when hiring? Not all women get sick and need a lot of time off.
I'm not a fan of forcing employers to hire certain candidates. For politics, yes that sector should be a reflection of society. For the private sector best man/women for the job should be the deciding factor. Of course favoritism always plays a role. That's the problem with society, it's run by humans.

Yes, politics... around 50-50 voters but woman don't get that many votes. Maybe woman don't believe in the woman candidates?



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."

Aerys on 10 December 2015

The reality and truth is that men are as much victim of gender inequality. It's not a minor equality and shouldnt be considered as such.

And you forgot some, everything about money and price, women have often free things, like nightclubs or more " special clubs", they have cheaper price for a lot of things like beauty institute ( which cant be explained by logic contrary at what some people think) , and the one that upset me the most is the big advantage in job of communication, the easiest job to get, in shops, owners have often 2 reasons to take a woman over a woman, one obvious and the other if you are in a woman shop ( which constitue 50% of the shops ), it's not common a woman shop that takes men so it becomes much much harder to find a small job like this ( whereas it's a very cool job) because we have much much less choices.
Whereas, on the other side, a girl can easily work in a man or girl or mixed gender shop without any problem.

I dont know if it's the same everywhere but at least here, it's like that, i've been personnally victim of this gender discrimination when a owner told me " you seem to be good, i would like to take you but my boss told me we cant take men anymore because women are scared " WTF lol , and it's not the only case i experienced while i was looking for a job



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Around the Network
Aerys on 10 December 2015

" I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is rape. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting. "

And this one is sadly too much true.
And it's bad as much for women than men, for women because they are treated like childrens " oh but you drinked too much wine so you were drunk so not responsible for your actions so if this drunk man had sex with you, it's a rape" , but what does that mean ? I wouldnt be proud as a woman if i have dignity to be told that i'm not responsible anymore in case i drink too much.

So what, if a woman takes her car after a night with too much alcohol she shouldnt be responsible for killing people on the road if we use the same logic.

That doesnt make sense at all.



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Aerys on 10 December 2015

And of course, i dont talk about the worst part : The forced paternity, that, that's really something, a subject on which any lawyer will agree but it cant be told , that's a part of the huge silenced inequalities.

That's the avantage of the women over the men in term of inequality, the inequalities they had cant be silenced because the feminism is a deep fundation of the modern society nowadays.



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

o_O.Q on 10 December 2015
Aerys said:
The reality and truth is that men are as much victim of gender inequality. It's not a minor equality and shouldnt be considered as such. 

And you forgot some, everything about money and price, women have often free things, like nightclubs or more " special clubs", they have cheaper price for a lot of things like beauty institute ( which cant be explained by logic contrary at what some people think) , and the one that upset me the most is the big advantage in job of communication, the easiest job to get, in shops, owners have often 2 reasons to take a woman over a woman, one obvious and the other if you are in a woman shop ( which constitue 50% of the shops ), it's not common a woman shop that takes men so it becomes much much harder to find a small job like this ( whereas it's a very cool job) because we have much much less choices.
Whereas, on the other side, a girl can easily work in a man or girl or mixed gender shop without any problem.

I dont know if it's the same everywhere but at least here, it's like that, i've been personnally victim of this gender discrimination when a owner told me " you seem to be good, i would like to take you but my boss told me we cant take men anymore because women are scared " WTF lol , and it's not the only case i experienced while i was looking for a job

 

the problem is that men/boys are forced to understand at a very early age that they are to be "strong"... even if its not an explicit expectation we all understand that it is heavily implied and as a result men tend not to acknowledge the various ways that they are disadvantaged in society

the same to a certain extent applied to women before feminism, but after feminism all of the expectations society placed on women are seen as oppressive and so they are being torn down

so women are freeing themselves from the burdens society placed on them while men generally still shoulder the ones placed on them because it is seen as their duty to do so

this is where groups like the "manosphere" are emerging from... these are men that see the changing conditions and are seeking to adapt to the changes... whether that is a good thing or not i don't know... one could argue that societal expectations were there for a reason but who knows



SvennoJ on 10 December 2015
DonFerrari said:

Yes, politics... around 50-50 voters but woman don't get that many votes. Maybe woman don't believe in the woman candidates?

Perhaps there aren't that many female candidates. I didn't check who I actually voted for last election. I voted for the party I wanted in government, who ever was attached to that at the local level got the vote. It was Danielle Takacs, yet she didn't win although the Liberals won by a landslide. (Phil McColeman took the win) The new parliament is:

Gender

26% in parliament, while 33% of the candidates were female. (1% increase from 2011)
The party with the highest female percentage (43%) lost the most, unfortunate byproduct of getting Harper out.
A key hurdle is that the main parties are still not putting forward enough female candidates, says Louise Carbert, a Dalhousie University political scientist. This year, women accounted for one-third of the 1,427 candidates running for the five main parties, but many of them were running for the Green Party or the Bloc Quebecois, with little to no chance of winning their riding. The increase in female representation has mostly happened in cities – to improve representation, more women need to win in the country’s rural ridings.

At least Trudaux has come true on his promise to make a gender balanced cabinet (15 to 16)

Anyway I don't think it's a case of lesser confidence in female candidates.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/we-have-a-record-number-of-female-mps-but-hold-the-applause/article26887164/



Ljink96 on 10 December 2015

I agree and disagree with a few things...but mostly I agree. But I'm okay with that because I'm always concerned with myself. I'm a blank slate.