• 137 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by AndyAce83 (118 posts) -

America is getting more and more PC and I am afraid that will be your downfall. I see people like FeminsitFrequency and Nostalgia Chick who wants to put everything on a feminist spinn and often ruin the product in the process.

An example of how NostalgiaChick´s message affects others and perverts movies with her feminist crapp: In the NostalgiaCritics review of "Disney´s the Little Mermaid" (1989) he said he loved the Little Mermaid. How the love story was more compelling and how the Little Mermaid was an appealing character. Then he mentioned he saw Nostalgic chics video review and how she said "The Little Mermaid doesnt change at all" and that the moral of the The Little Mermaid was that if you bitch and whine you get what you want (talk about projecting ones own values, eh?). Now I dont want to analyse the Little Mermaid to death, but I think a normal healthy, non PC person would agree that that is NOT the moral of the story. The moral of that movie is (like most Disney fairytale) that love conquers all and that true love is worth sacrificing for. Nostalgia Critic even notes that, when Ariel almost dies in the end but then adds (to be PC) "that scene wasnt long enough".

That is the problem with feminism. Its a dissecting tool meant to ruin any text and adds its own nonsensical values. These values are that women worth is more than a mans worth. That one should remove female stereotypes (or at least only have female empowered stereotypes) and that negative men stereotypes (being simple, aggressive, basically variations on Homer Simpson) are fine, but positive stereotypes (like the action hero, or the wimp who ends believing in himself) should be criticized to death and removed from pop-culture. Its so clear that many feminist art critics either dont understand or dont want to understand the female characters they criticizes.

#52 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@Turambar said:

This scene seemed relevant.

I had to stop at the 2:00 minute mark. That is ridiculous.

#53 Posted by mystakin (100 posts) -

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

Also, having expectations of women is not sexist, it's just an expectation that each male is, hopefully, willing to change based on a woman's wants. Men expect women to be able to clean and cook, and women expect men to be able to fix things and take care of the things they don't want to do, so why is only one of those sexist?

It's not. They both are, but women have very little power in American society compared to men. At face value, both assumptions are sexist stereotypes. However, men are in the fortunate position of controlling most American industries and are better equipped to counteract male stereotypes while propagating female ones -- usually without intent to cause harm.

Neither statement is more sexist than the other; one is just more of a problem.

I agree there are differences, but the claim "women have very little power in American society compared to men" is ridiculous. Today women are CEOs, political candidates, Supreme Court Justices, athletes, and just about anything else you can imagine. Saying they have very little power is undermining the massive progress this country has made in gender equality.

There are some, but they're outliers. There's nothing specific to women that should preclude them from being CEOs or political candidates, yet only 4% of CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies are women and 16.8% of Congress are women. Those numbers should be closer to, though not necessarily equal to, their population figure, which is 51%.

There's been progress, but it's nowhere close to equal.

#54 Posted by SpartyOn (500 posts) -

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

#55 Posted by Brodehouse (9519 posts) -
@mystakin this is a false causality. Women are under represented in the Fortune 500 list, that doesn't constitute sexism, covert or otherwise. Especially in a field like business (and management) which is possibly the most gender neutral. Money doesn't understand gender roles. It would be the same as looking at the representation of men within teaching and nursing and establishing rhetoric that men are being arbitrarily kept out. Or that the overwhelming number of men in prison compared to women suggests a criminal justice system engendered to punish men (it is, but in different ways than that).

And while there are absolutely a great deal of people voting from a bigoted standpoint, it can easily turn in both misogynist and misandrist directions. In a country where 1 person equals 1 vote, women's 51% population advantage (and that number only increases for eligible voters) would suggest that women would dominate politics if it were as simple as drawing it down gender lines. But we all know things are more complicated than that across the wider spectrum.
#56 Posted by mystakin (100 posts) -

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

#57 Posted by Downloaded (172 posts) -

Having pre-existing ideas of what people should be able to do is not wrong. Stereotypes are not wrong. It's a natural predisposition of humans that has become part of our nature because it is evolutionarily advantageous to have an opinion about something before having to interact with it. In the same way that we look at fire and think "hot", it's normal for us to look at a person we have never met before and pass a judgment about them based on what we have heard about people of their ethnicity/gender/etc. As SpartyOn said, what is wrong is not recognizing stereotypes as stereotypes, and ignoring that they do not determine who a person actually is.

For example, my university is located in a rough area of a large American city. I recognize that not everyone who lives around my campus has the intention of mugging me, but it would still be stupid of me not to regard people with caution while walking home late at night. Judging people without meeting them is an essential aspect of survival, and people should recognize that stereotypes exist for a reason and are only harmful when we treat them as facts rather that stereotypes, which are actually useful in many contexts.

Back to sexism...gender equality is an interesting issue, because I feel like people somehow need to justify placing men and women on some objectively even playing field, which doesn't really make much sense. Once again, as humans, males and females are different and there isn't any harm in recognizing our differences, as really they all end up coming down to chemical processes in our bodies. We tend to have different personality traits, different motivations, and different ways of going about solving problems. I absolutely feel that men and women should be able to fill the same roles in society, and I think that if the quality of work being done by a woman is equal to that being done by a man, she should be paid just as much. That said, some jobs might just be better suited for men than women and vice versa, and I don't think that having a mentality that every workforce in the world should be split 50/50 makes much sense since it's unreasonable and not a particularly efficient use of our time.

#58 Edited by Turambar (6640 posts) -

@algertman said:

@Turambar said:

This scene seemed relevant.

I had to stop at the 2:00 minute mark. That is ridiculous.

Fast forward to 4 minutes in. Should have noted that. Sam's obsession is spaced out over a 40 minute episode, but compressed into 6 minutes and its pretty hilarious, yeah.

#59 Edited by SpartyOn (500 posts) -

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

One more reply and then I'm going to have to be done with this conversation. If you're standard of gender equality is that we are only equal when women hold 51% of all political and corporate jobs, then your logic is seriously flawed. I read an article just the other day that stated women held more CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies than ever in history, and I think that is wonderful. However, I would rather the best people for the job, get the job. If that means 99% are men or women, so be it. This notion of everything being split down the middle or we're sexist is insane, and it only serves to propagate sexism in society. You're focusing on the wrong things, and you have the wrong goals, although your reasons are just. Regardless, fun debating with you, but I'm just repeating myself now so I will have to excuse myself from this conversation.

@Downloaded: Agreed completely. Well said.

#60 Posted by UltorOscariot (170 posts) -

I'm not saying sexism is a non-issue. But like many others, I'm regularly confused why people seem to think game blogs and game forums are the best place to discuss these issues.

#61 Posted by Downloaded (172 posts) -

@UltorOscariot: I suppose the Off-Topic boards should just be about video games too, then?

#62 Posted by Downloaded (172 posts) -

@Brodehouse:

I have to disagree with your claim that business and management is a gender-neutral field. The entire system revolves around climbing the corporate ladder and promotions are given by people, not machines. Business and management positions are easily the most male-dominated fields at the moment, as so much of success depends on who you know rather than what you know.

#63 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

At this point, I'm going to assume the OP is a troll and most of you have been flame-bated into looking like cocks.

GG

#64 Posted by Brodehouse (9519 posts) -
@Downloaded

@Brodehouse:

I have to disagree with your claim that business and management is a gender-neutral field. The entire system revolves around climbing the corporate ladder and promotions are given by people, not machines. Business and management positions are easily the most male-dominated fields at the moment, as so much of success depends on who you know rather than what you know.

Promotions are given by bosses, yes. But success is a number followed by a dollar sign. And in the case of the Fortune 500 and people in Congress, the people in question usually ARE the bosses. CEOs are not judged on the quality of their penis, they're judged by their margins. If it was Jacqueline Tretton and Saoko Iwata, and they're as talented at their job as their real life counterparts, Sony or Nintendo would ultimately be less profitable if they promoted an inferior employee on the grounds of 'has a Y chromosome'.

Business is absolutely full of its own vagaries, but profitability is the ultimate judge. The 'old boys club' mentality that loses out on talent and profitability eventually ceases to exist through either ethical progression or financial obsolescence.
#65 Posted by mystakin (100 posts) -

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin said:

@SpartyOn said:

@mystakin: Correct, as I said originally. The disagreement was on the statement that women have very little power in society. Take a look at societies and cultures around the world where women are considered to be property. Not only that, but it's crazy to say that gender equality can be measured by the % CEO's and members of Congress that are women. Those professions have long been dominated by men, largely because of scientifically observable personality traits common to men that correlate with success in such professions. You can easily find high-paying jobs dominated by women and quote those statistics too. I hate it when people interpret equality the way you are, which is to be completely equal in every respect...that's ridiculous. There are differences in gender and it's insane to ignore them. Men are better suited for some professions, and women others. The important thing, is that we allow for the exceptions to have the opportunities to succeed, even in roles dominated by the opposite gender. Your argument is completely invalid to me...a more appropriate argument would be the difference in pay rates between men and women...something directly comparable between genders, and not biased towards proving a particular point.

Corporate and political power are the two strongest forces in America. Anything that isn't run by the government is typically run by business and the free market. Both keys to power in America are held by men, which is why I said women hold little power in American society. I don't think women are equal in every aspect; I think they're equal in their ability to be CEOs and political figures. There's a reason I didn't mention athletics, which is a career that may in-fact be genetically more suitable for men -- though I haven't looked into it.

One more reply and then I'm going to have to be done with this conversation. If you're standard of gender equality is that we are only equal when women hold 51% of all political and corporate jobs, then your logic is seriously flawed. I read an article just the other day that stated women held more CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies than ever in history, and I think that is wonderful. However, I would rather the best people for the job, get the job. If that means 99% are men or women, so be it. This notion of everything being split down the middle or we're sexist is insane, and it only serves to propagate sexism in society. You're focusing on the wrong things, and you have the wrong goals, although your reasons are just. Regardless, fun debating with you, but I'm just repeating myself now so I will have to excuse myself from this conversation.

@Downloaded: Agreed completely. Well said.

I know you said you won't post again, so I'll try to sum up my thoughts on this. My point is not that America is sexist or that no progress is being made. My point is simply that America is still not gender equal, and there's a lot of progress left.

96% of the top 1000 CEO positions are held by men. The question then becomes, why? Why do they hold so many positions? Do we believe that such a large discrepancy could happen by chance? I don't. I think something is causing it. So what's causing it? Are women genetically predisposed to be bad CEOs/politicians? I don't see why they would be. Is it sexism in the workplace? Well, maybe, but we have standards in place now to take care of the extreme examples. I'm not convinced that's the whole story.

I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think it's a society issue. When a person pictures of a business executive, they typically picture a man. That's what we're used to from fictional and historical depictions of the position. Does that make us all sexist? No, but these snap assumptions can lead to sexist decision making such as interrupting women more often during conversations or paying women less until they ask for a raise -- of which they're historically denied. I think the majority of discrimination against anyone in America is subconscious. It's like "there are no bad people, just bad decisions" except it's "there are no sexist people, just sexist decisions."

- For teaching and nursing, I think the discrepancy may be two-fold. First, they are jobs historically held by women so -- much like my point with women of power but in reverse -- men aren't considered for those jobs as seriously as women are. That's not okay, either. Secondly, Nursing and teaching are facing potential shortage crises, possibly due to low wages. Nursing and teaching aren't idealized as careers the way high-paying corporate and political jobs are, and with men holding so many higher-paying positions, it's reasonable to assume that a man might seek those careers out instead.

#66 Posted by Jimmi (166 posts) -

Read this.

Opened my eyes a little bit, hopefully it will do the same for you.

#67 Posted by ImHungry (376 posts) -

As far as your perception of sexist expectations of women go:

1. Pretty much everyone should be able to clean. That perceived sexism seems extremely 60s to me.

2. Men don't have wombs or ovaries.

3. Househusband, or Stay-at-home Dad, has become an actual term, so I'd imagine not all expectation is on women nowadays.

And as for sexism being an unnoticed topic in the US, just from my cursory following of the US elections(full disclosure, not from the US), I get the impression that sexism toward women is an issue that's brought up fairly often and seems to get quite a bit of attention, more than I personally think it should.

#68 Posted by Brodehouse (9519 posts) -
@mystakin I don't find the 'picture an executive' to be a rhetorically effective method of establishing rampan sexism; it establishes a person's ability to recognize patterns (a trait that has actually been proven to be superior in women!). If we want to go down that path, picture a prisoner. You've pictured a man wearing orange (or possibly black and white stripes!). If you want to connect that to other things; people will intervene in a situation where a man raises his voice to a woman far more often than the opposite (in fact, they are more likely to respond to a man raising his voice to a woman than a woman physically attacking a man). If we're establishing that society is engendering men to become executives and politicians, it stands that we're engendering them to become criminals and dock workers as well. This is similar to the "Jews are over-represented in Hollywood; therefore you have to be Jewish to succeed in Hollywood" fallacy.

Stereotypes and associative connections are absolutely at play at all levels of society, but that's kind of what makes it society rather than a series of completely disconnected events. The abolition of this element requires a fundamental, neurological change in human nature and intelligence. I'm a transhumanist, so that's at least interesting to me on an intellectual level.
#69 Posted by Discoman (156 posts) -

Women have a harder time getting up the corporate ladder because their torn between family lives and their career. I've read many stories of start-ups and CEOs and its the same story of alot of time getting poured into their work while their family life suffers immensely regardless of their gender. For women it is a hard choice to continue their careers when it reaches that point.

#70 Posted by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

I'm not a business owner or someone who signs paychecks, so I can't speak on any of that.

However, I do know by looking around that men and women are clearly not the same, so I will not treat them the same.

"Sexist!" You might yell at me. Fine, I'll take that title. But I'm not about to punch a woman, either in jest or out of self-defense. I'm not going to compliment a man or flirt with him.
I'm going to ask a woman for her opinion on colors and to see if something smells fresh. I'm going to ask a man to help me lift a refrigerator into my truck.
I'm going to marry a woman and expect her to bear my children if/when we get to that point.

I guess I'm sexist because of this unequal treatment I give.

#71 Edited by mystakin (100 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin I don't find the 'picture an executive' to be a rhetorically effective method of establishing rampan sexism; it establishes a person's ability to recognize patterns (a trait that has actually been proven to be superior in women!). If we want to go down that path, picture a prisoner. You've pictured a man wearing orange (or possibly black and white stripes!). If you want to connect that to other things; people will intervene in a situation where a man raises his voice to a woman far more often than the opposite (in fact, they are more likely to respond to a man raising his voice to a woman than a woman physically attacking a man). If we're establishing that society is engendering men to become executives and politicians, it stands that we're engendering them to become criminals and dock workers as well. This is similar to the "Jews are over-represented in Hollywood; therefore you have to be Jewish to succeed in Hollywood" fallacy. Stereotypes and associative connections are absolutely at play at all levels of society, but that's kind of what makes it society rather than a series of completely disconnected events. The abolition of this element requires a fundamental, neurological change in human nature and intelligence. I'm a transhumanist, so that's at least interesting to me on an intellectual level.

It's the scenario that makes most sense to me, at least. I think subconscious assumptions drive our conscious actions a lot more than people give credit. Much like the nursing and teacher example, criminal and dock worker aren't careers people strive for, in general. They also aren't positions of power, which was my original point. Assuming there is male discrimination in sentencing criminals and hiring dock workers, it doesn't justify the lack of women in power. As for the Jewish example, it doesn't hold weight for me since it seems a bit too specific. I don't think people put thought into what religion someone is when they imagine them unless prompted to, but everyone will assign a gender to an imagined character.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why women are so under-represented in positions of power? The discrepancy has to exist for a reason, even if purely by chance. Maybe you've stated it and I've glossed over it by mistake.

- That makes sense, but I would ask why are women more susceptible to ending their careers for family life? It could be a genetic caregiver role, but it could also be societal standards that suggest women should be caregivers that weighs on their decision making. As a "nurture" guy in the nature/nurture debates, I'm more inclined to say the latter is the larger cause.

#72 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@LikeaSsur: You do know that most women would be able to help you move stuff and not all of them know anything about what colors go. And here is the the real shocker, a lot of men aren't very strong while some are completely fabulous

In fact most stereotypes are completely wrong

#73 Posted by Nights (602 posts) -

I agree with you, but it's a two way street. There are plenty of women out there who expect men to be chivalrous. How is that any different? Here's the thing: You can't have it both ways. You can't claim chivalry is dead and then go on about equal rights.

#74 Posted by Jams (2959 posts) -

@Jimmi said:

Read this.

Opened my eyes a little bit, hopefully it will do the same for you.

That was perfect. Got lost for a bit in all the reading there and didn't even get to read most of it.

#75 Posted by pyromagnestir (4195 posts) -

My solution to the problem is to attempt to have sex with everyone I meet so as not to be sexist.

Online
#76 Posted by Brodehouse (9519 posts) -
@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.
#77 Posted by Brodehouse (9519 posts) -
@pyromagnestir

My solution to the problem is to attempt to have sex with everyone I meet so as not to be sexist.

Lets do this thing.
#78 Posted by pyromagnestir (4195 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@pyromagnestir

My solution to the problem is to attempt to have sex with everyone I meet so as not to be sexist.

Lets do this thing.

Just name a time and place and it's on.

Online
#79 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

@Blimble said:

@Dagbiker: There are only three sources and the second source is it's own website. I'm sure this is a very reliable study.

What are your sources on your data?

#80 Posted by Azteck (7450 posts) -

Great, this conversation again.

#81 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Dagbiker: I didn't post any data, I pointed out a flaw in that picture.

#82 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

#83 Edited by mystakin (100 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

#84 Posted by Fattony12000 (6956 posts) -

@sissylion said:

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

Nope! That's not what that word means.

Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Sexist attitudes are frequently based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. Sexism is not just a matter of individual attitudes, but is built into many societal institutions. The term sexism is most often used in relation to discrimination against women.

Sexism involves disdain of, or prejudice towards, a gender as a whole or the application of gender stereotypes. Sexism is often associated with gender supremacy arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

Round about 95% of all serious gender discrimination that has ever occurred in all of human history has indeed been against women, but that's not what that single word means by itself.

#85 Posted by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -
@Blimble: Yeah, stupid science telling me that men have more upper body strength and women can see more colors than men.

Those statistically supported facts are just stupid.
#86 Posted by ShinjiEx (624 posts) -

We need more sexism in the entertainment media department.

#87 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5174 posts) -

The US is a patriarchal society hence there will be a good deal of discrimination against women; though due to affirimative action there are actually some positives to being a woman even if you have a lower glass ceiling. A young newly graduated woman is more likely to find a job than a young newly graduated man; the company can justify this by paying them 70% as much, but its sort of a having a job paying at a worse rate is better than having no job at all situation. I'm a male WASP but I'm not wealthy so I'm just as screwed as any other young collegiate graduate; I often wonder if I would be in a better position as a marginalized portion of society instead of being in a weak position in the dominant group (obviously if I was born in a wealthier position it would be much more useful to be in this grouping).

#88 Edited by Jams (2959 posts) -

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

#89 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

@Fattony12000: I'm not going to argue semantics with you. "Sexism" and "gender discrimination" are two different things, at least in America.

#90 Posted by Sevenout (71 posts) -

@LikeaSsur: You do know that seeing more colors doesn't mean you have fashion sense aka "know what colors go together." Teenagers can hear more tones than adults but that doesn't mean I intrinsically trust their tastes in music. Understanding fashion/design/art-stuff isn't inherent to just women. Anyone can be creative. If you only ask women about complimentary colors, you are only going to get a correct answer about half the time. You should look for someone who is good at art, not just the nearest female.

#91 Posted by Gregomasta (1541 posts) -

@PandaBear said:

Bitches be crazy.

#92 Posted by Jams (2959 posts) -

@sissylion said:

@Fattony12000: I'm not going to argue semantics with you. "Sexism" and "gender discrimination" are two different things, at least in America.

It's not semantics. Sexism is the same as racism but switch out race for gender. It's one gender/race thinking they're superior in every way to other genders/races. If you think that racism and sexism are one way streets then you are fooling yourself.

#93 Posted by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@Sevenout: Uh.....okay? I have no idea where I said I would ask women which colors would go with which, but thanks for the reply, I guess?

#94 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@LikeaSsur: Yes science have proven that men can lift anything while all women can't lift a thing. Scientists also used science to figure out men don't even know what colors are, they in fact all see in black and white while women have rainbow vision

also sarcasm. Most women could easily help you lift stuff just as well as a man and most men could easily help you with colours. Sure men around their peak of fitness are stronger than women but talking about average people it ain't that different, this isn't the eighteenth century when all women were little dainty things who fainted constantly . Same with colors, women can see more but a man can easily tell different colors and shades apart

#95 Edited by LikeaSsur (1487 posts) -

@Blimble: Thanks for the hyperbole, it really helps strengthen your point. Also, I sincerely apologize for not agreeing with your way of thinking.

Regardless of what you say, I'm still going to ask my dad to help me shovel the driveway before I ask my mom. Why? Because my dad is a lot stronger.

I'm still going to ask my girlfriend if this piece of tile is red, burgundy, auburn, or brown before I ask my brother. Why? Because my girlfriend can tell the difference between such subtleties. I nor my brother can't.

If you count this as "sexist" behavior, then fine. I'm a sexist. I already said I'd take the title. I'm not sorry for playing to the strengths that different sexes have to offer. How terrible of me.

Also, how interesting it is that these are the two points you're arguing, but you've said nothing about me refusing to hit a girl and refusing to flirt with a man. Aren't I treating men and women differently in those circumstances too? Aren't I placing women above men on the scale of "attractiveness," while placing men above women on the scale of "able to take a punch?" Isn't that sexist as well?

#96 Edited by mystakin (100 posts) -

@Jams said:

@mystakin said:

@Brodehouse said:

@mystakin the reasons stated are best explored in the shady8x post Jimmi linked to earlier. The redditor in question has done a commendable job of promoting equality over simplistic equivalencies. It is societal, but in a much more natural and self-driven way than the assumed 'oppressive male domination' that is too easily reached for.

I honestly find that post misleading and unrelated to my initial point. Though the articles state the pay gap may be a myth, few deny its existence outright. Many articles still state that women have difficulty breaking into business and that societal constraints may play a role in that. Either way, none of the links address the lack of power that I've been discussing, to my knowledge.

I will admit to personal bias as well. I don't have a lot of faith in a subreddit that rallies against the solution to their own problems.

Men and women aren't just two jugs you can just fill with the equal amounts of water. That's a goal that will never be accomplished. You can't just want equal numbers even if there aren't even enough women in the field to make it even. The USA is equal in almost every way. We have enough people of all types in power to make sure it stays that way. To think otherwise is fooling yourself. You'll find every type of race and gender in every type of seat of importance or wealth. You'll now only find sexism or racism only in individual cases or small time group think. Things like the Presidency are a different story. That's a one person job that one person every 4 years gets to have and we've only just acquired our equality in the recent decades. We do still have holdouts from previous generations who are still holding their predispositions towards race and gender. But that'll change with every new generation born.

Being equal isn't about being a one to one ratio. It's about everything balancing out in the end. Where one man may have worked his way up the ladder with hard work and determination, a woman blackmailed her way there. One woman has to fight twice as hard to get her job while there is a guy who did it with his social status. For every woman that fights for real equality is one that does it for their own twisted agenda. If there are too many women with twisted agenda's then people start pushing back until it all balances out and that's what makes it fair and equal in the end.

I think America and most developed nations have gotten to this point of equality and it's only going to cement or get better while every older generation dies out. The real problem is trying to get the undeveloped nations there too.

This is what I believe.

The US isn't as equal as you think it is. Just as an example, in 2002 there was a study that concluded a 50% lower job application callback rate for African-American sounding names. Simply sounding like you were black meant a lower likelihood of being hired. Maybe this has improved in the past decade, but I doubt it's resolved entirely. The study is only about as old as Halo 1.

#97 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -
#98 Posted by Fattony12000 (6956 posts) -

@sissylion: :(

#99 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@LikeaSsur said:

I'm not sorry for playing to the strengths that different sexes have to offer. How terrible of me.

They aren't strengths though as the sexes aren't that different. Maybe your dad is stronger than your mom but that doesn't mean women are weaker than men, you will know a lot of women stronger than both and you. Also if you and your brother can't tell shades of colors apart it says more about your intelligence than anything and there are women who would have no idea either. Neither of those qualities and many other men and women stereotypes you could bring up aren't genetic or fit the majority.

#100 Edited by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

@sissylion said:

Sexism is an institution which systematically oppresses a certain group. That group is women. Saying "sexism towards women" is redundant.

Nope, Oppression is the institution that systematically persecutes against a certain group. Sexism is merely a reason/cause for it.