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

Forums - Politics Discussion - 97 Advantages of being female

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.



Around the Network
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

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

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

Around the Network
Aielyn said:
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.

You didn't said much. You just highlighted and gave no input. So much was left to interpretation



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."

Men's rights activist is the polite way of saying pathetic basement virgin.

Moderated - Miguel_Zorro



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Aielyn said:
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.

It seems to me that the author's point is that while it's mostly ok for a woman to decide to be a housewife, if for whatever reason a man decides to do the same, it's much more likely that he will be ridiculed for his decision. In most societies it's still not ok for a man not to have a job.



naruball said:
It seems to me that the author's point is that while it's mostly ok for a woman to decide to be a housewife, if for whatever reason a man decides to do the same, it's much more likely that he will be ridiculed for his decision. In most societies it's still not ok for a man not to have a job. 

If the author had said that, there might have been some small sliver of reasonability. But when the author put the emphasis on "leisurely life with light housework" rather than using a phrase like "without being ridiculed for the choice", he (and I'm pretty confident it's a "he") demonstrated quite clearly what he thinks about the concepts of house wives and house husbands.



DonFerrari said:
You didn't said much. You just highlighted and gave no input. So much was left to interpretation

That would be true, if I hadn't said "I'm pretty sure the author is male. I wasn't as confident about it until I got to number 14."

That gives the context to the rest of it. And from that, it should be pretty easy to comprehend what I was saying - clearly "housewives can't live lives of leisure" doesn't match with that first line of text.