Sexism and bigotry in today's world.

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for mariachimacabre
MariachiMacabre

7097

Forum Posts

106

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#51  Edited By MariachiMacabre

@MideonNViscera said:

@Morrow said:

@MideonNViscera said:

Sexism will always exist as long as men keep witnessing women go absolutely batshit crazy over nothing.

That's your justification for sexism? Because some women overreact sometimes?

Gosh, I really need to stay out of those sexism threads. Or else I might lose hope in men completely.

It's the only form of sexism I'm guilty of, so yeah. I dunno why some countries keep women locked up and beat them or whatever, but I do know why I don't generally listen to women haha

Men are just a fucking stupid as women. It's not about sex it's about people. Men and women both say and do stupid shit all the fucking time. And the way you're phrasing your argument makes you look like one of those dudes who tells women to "Be quiet, the MEN are speaking." Women may be more emotional than men but men are far and away the more violent of the sexes. Don't act like the fact that you're "only" guilty of this form of sexism excuses anything. It's still fucking pathetic and has no place in society.

Avatar image for prestonhedges
prestonhedges

1961

Forum Posts

42

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52  Edited By prestonhedges

@CouldntThinkofaUsername said:

As of late there has been a lot of talk about sexism and bigotry in media. The video game and comic industry in particular. The problem I have is that people complaining about this ignore the fact that bigotry for better or worse is everywhere throughout all mediums.

Who are these people? Go ahead, point one out to me. Oh, that's right, you can't. Because they're made of straw.

Also, what's your point? We should ignore sexism in video games because there's sexism in books? How the fuck does that make sense?

Avatar image for darkdragonmage99
darkdragonmage99

744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#53  Edited By darkdragonmage99

@Morrow: yes because a women can't simply nut a man and fight over

Avatar image for little_socrates
Little_Socrates

5847

Forum Posts

1570

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 23

#54  Edited By Little_Socrates

And the games industry offers more variety, quality, and fairness in dealing with men than other mediums and still has the likes of Skullgirls (which is otherwise a great game), Mortal Kombat (again, great game), Girl Fight, Dead or Alive, Lollipop Chainsaw, and, yes, Tomb Raider. This is due to a largely male industry, a largely male press, and a largely male audience. I would like more feminine perspective in the industry, and in all industries I choose to take part in. I see few movies in theaters and watch almost zero television for roughly the same reason.

That is all I want. More equivalent perspective and less gender-politics reinforcing bullshit. I will endorse the shit that does what I like and I will talk down the shit that bothers me, whether it's for awful business plans, unfulfilled promises, and, yes, poor gender politics. I wish I felt good about playing Skullgirls, but I don't. It is that simple.

Avatar image for demonology_24
DEMONOLOGY_24

526

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#55  Edited By DEMONOLOGY_24

@flindip said:

@drag said:

and so, men who don't behave in a 'manly' way are belittled and often discriminated against. that's the real damage behind people blaming misandry for stuff - it creates gender division, it says 'here's men's problems over here caused by misandry, and there's women's problems over there caused by misogyny' like we're in some pitched battle. when in reality - we are all in the same battle against a common enemy. we are all defined by and expected to act in a certain way by the culture & society we live in, and are punished for straying from what has become considered correct or normal.

Here is my rub:

Gender roles, and Gender division are NOT, imo, etherial social constructs. They are rooted in biological leanings(Psychologically, and physiologically). Men, generally, are going to act a certain way naturally and Women, generally, are going to act a certain way naturally. Outliners exist but they are exceptions not the rule. Social constructs, imo, are merely the expressions of those differences.

My issues with certain schools of thought of Feminism(not all of it) is that we can socially engineer the sexes into a genderless automaton. Some Feminists believe that the division between the sexes are completely artificial. That to me is horse shit.

There used to be a school of thought in child psychology that gender roles could be reversed:

Behold, this fucking horror show:

Lets just say, in the world of psychology, its not really a popular opinion any more.

I saw that in my Anthropology class the saying that "boys will be boys" isn't just a saying it's a truth

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#56  Edited By Chroma_Auron

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By flindip

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

So you are going to base social constructs on meaningless aesthetics? Your going to have to bring more to the table than that my friend.

Also, your not really addressing what I was saying, unless of course social constructs are based on pink for girls, blue for boys.

Avatar image for clonedzero
Clonedzero

4206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Clonedzero

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

i believe what he was saying was that not all gender roles and divisions are social constraints. some are for example like your pointless color thing. males are more aggressive and dominate because they're biologically programmed to be. females are more nurturing and submissive, because again, they're biologically programmed to be. obviously we can overcome these instinctual presets, but to deny they exist is ridiculous.

the base fight or flight response, men are more prone to fight, while women are more prone to flight. again, obviously the reverse can happen, but thats the normal reactions to things.

these base level biological instinctual reactions bleed into culture and society.

Avatar image for deactivated-59a31562f0e29
deactivated-59a31562f0e29

1212

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Chroma_Auron: best bit is there was some evo psych study saying women prefer pink because it helped them spot berries in prehistoric times.

That's kinda the main problem with it, ... typically take something which exists today, assumes it is the correct or 'natural' way things should be, and then casts an eye back and tries to find a reason why that is. So, the complete opposite of how actual science should run.

I'm not super well informed about the specifics though to be honest, but it's very contentious and outright ignored (I mean, in relation to this specific issue) by most people. Here's something I just found which kinda runs through a few interesting points nicely though - http://www.science20.com/michael_taft/why_evolutionary_psychology_pisses_you_and_why_maybe_it_shouldnt-87622

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60  Edited By flindip

@Clonedzero:

That is exactly what I was trying to say. You picked up on it, kudos to you.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61  Edited By flindip

@drag said:

@Chroma_Auron: best bit is there was some evo psych study saying women prefer pink because it helped them spot berries in prehistoric times.

That's kinda the main problem with it, ... typically take something which exists today, assumes it is the correct or 'natural' way things should be, and then casts an eye back and tries to find a reason why that is. So, the complete opposite of how actual science should run.

I'm not super well informed about the specifics though to be honest, but it's very contentious and outright ignored (I mean, in relation to this specific issue) by most people. Here's something I just found which kinda runs through a few interesting points nicely though - http://www.science20.com/michael_taft/why_evolutionary_psychology_pisses_you_and_why_maybe_it_shouldnt-87622

Not trying to offend, but your post comes off as extremely vague. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say, since I'm not sure what you are addressing.

Avatar image for sblacksmith
sBlacksmith

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#62  Edited By sBlacksmith

@Clonedzero said:

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

i believe what he was saying was that not all gender roles and divisions are social constraints. some are for example like your pointless color thing. males are more aggressive and dominate because they're biologically programmed to be. females are more nurturing and submissive, because again, they're biologically programmed to be. obviously we can overcome these instinctual presets, but to deny they exist is ridiculous.

the base fight or flight response, men are more prone to fight, while women are more prone to flight. again, obviously the reverse can happen, but thats the normal reactions to things.

these base level biological instinctual reactions bleed into culture and society.

What of the female-dominated tribes that did and do exist?

Avatar image for defaulttag
defaulttag

904

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#63  Edited By defaulttag
Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#64  Edited By MikkaQ

@Clonedzero said:

why so many threads on this subject? everyday theres a new one.

Because sexism is the new Mass Effect 3 ending.

Wait, that was not very PC was it?

Sorry.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65  Edited By flindip

@sBlacksmith said:

What of the female-dominated tribes that did and do exist?

You have to give examples. If you are inferring to matriarchal tribes, women were put in position of power, but men did most if not all the labor. That doesn't really change what we are talking about.

Avatar image for sblacksmith
sBlacksmith

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#66  Edited By sBlacksmith

@flindip: In several African tribes the females do all the work. But I was just asking from vague memories really.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By flindip

@sBlacksmith said:

@flindip: In several African tribes the females do all the work. But I was just asking from vague memories really.

You got to give examples, so we can have a discourse. Otherwise its irrelevant. I know of a couple matriarchial societies(ancient crete for example). But I have never heard of any that women did all the work and the men did nothing. Unless it was some bizzare matriarchial warrior centric tribe, where men exclusively trained to be warriors and women did everything else.

I can say that the vast majority of matriarchial societies were largely unsuccessful or got swallowed up by patriarchial ones.

Avatar image for chroma_auron
Chroma_Auron

124

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#68  Edited By Chroma_Auron

@flindip: Female hunter and male gather tribe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/15/childrensservices.familyandrelationships

http://www.matses.info/photos/Matses-014-Woman-Hunters.html

While not hunter dominated these women are equals in power

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/KhasiGaro.html

@drag: I usually have a few issues with evolutionary psychology articles as ones I have seen focus on hetrosexuals, reproduction, full intercourse of piv. Also the guys reasoning was really weak and stereotypical like "Take this recent example, discussing a study that supposedly explains why men fall asleep after sex. Hint: it's because they don't want to talk about commitment."

Avatar image for spartanlolz92
spartanlolz92

520

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69  Edited By spartanlolz92

@JuggernautSwagger said:

It is hard to look at both sides of an issue when the media only ever represents one side or the other. FoxNews only caters to the right and CNN caters left etc.

so true

The reason you never hear about men and the issues they have to deal with is because there is a social stigma attached to a guy talking about his problems. Also a alot men have problems dealing with emotions there is a reason why alcoholism is more predominate in males.

Avatar image for l4wd0g
l4wd0g

2395

Forum Posts

353

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

#70  Edited By l4wd0g

@MikkaQ said:

@Clonedzero said:

why so many threads on this subject? everyday theres a new one.

Because sexism is the new Mass Effect 3 ending.

Wait, that was not very PC was it?

Sorry.

It's a PotUS election year. And people are listening to the talking heads and it's coming through into their podcast and podcast to the forums. We all want to be a part of the conversation

If you want to hear some real hatred of white men, read or listen to Arthur Gies.

Avatar image for clonedzero
Clonedzero

4206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71  Edited By Clonedzero

@sBlacksmith said:

@Clonedzero said:

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

i believe what he was saying was that not all gender roles and divisions are social constraints. some are for example like your pointless color thing. males are more aggressive and dominate because they're biologically programmed to be. females are more nurturing and submissive, because again, they're biologically programmed to be. obviously we can overcome these instinctual presets, but to deny they exist is ridiculous.

the base fight or flight response, men are more prone to fight, while women are more prone to flight. again, obviously the reverse can happen, but thats the normal reactions to things.

these base level biological instinctual reactions bleed into culture and society.

What of the female-dominated tribes that did and do exist?

yeah, cus norms and rules never have exceptions right? they are anomalies. they don't dismiss the entire theory.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72  Edited By flindip

@Chroma_Auron said:

@flindip: Female hunter and male gather tribe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/15/childrensservices.familyandrelationships

http://www.matses.info/photos/Matses-014-Woman-Hunters.html

While not hunter dominated these women are equals in power

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/KhasiGaro.html

@drag: I usually have a few issues with evolutionary psychology articles as ones I have seen focus on hetrosexuals, reproduction, full intercourse of piv. Also the guys reasoning was really weak and stereotypical like "Take this recent example, discussing a study that supposedly explains why men fall asleep after sex. Hint: it's because they don't want to talk about commitment."

The first two examples are not matriarchial societies nor female dominated, which is what I was responding to. The hunting role is still primarily a male role, where women fill in when needed. There is flexibility but also a glass ceiling.

The other link is interesting for sure. But its a society that is born through very unique perimeters. Could that society exist where resources were scarce? Probably not.

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Avatar image for sblacksmith
sBlacksmith

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#74  Edited By sBlacksmith
Avatar image for vodun
Vodun

2403

Forum Posts

220

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75  Edited By Vodun
Avatar image for gamer_152
gamer_152

15030

Forum Posts

74573

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 71

User Lists: 6

#76  Edited By gamer_152  Moderator

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the idea that men and women are equally as discriminated against in society, and while I do agree there are certain unfair societal pressures and biases against men, I definitely don't agree with the idea that they're predominately portrayed in media as the bad guy, that suicide rates or general emotional well-being are direct reflections of discrimination, or that men can't exhibit depression. But disregarding that, I think the idea of just sitting back and accepting the discrimination which continues in this world would be immoral and a step backwards, what's more I think this post glosses over some of the issues that affect video games and the gaming community specifically.

Firstly, while we may be able to find examples of discrimination across all mediums and in all areas of life, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stamp it out or that it always has to be there. Certainly, we've come a long way considering how certain social groups were once treated, but surely now that we have such strong grounding in the idea that discrimination is wrong, and as we are some of the luckier people in the world, having the ability of free speech and the power to change things (remember there are a lot of people in the world who just don't), why should we not try to step in and fix things when we see people being treated unfairly?

Secondly, while works in many mediums or even the mediums as a whole may exhibit closed-mindedness, stereotyping, and inequality in the way they treat women, no medium seems to go as far in this direction as video games do. There's a shortage of female protagonists, many of the most famous female game characters are known for their bodies more than anything else, and many female characters in games can easily be slotted into one of a handful of stereotypes where they're often eye-candy, operating in the shadow of a male character, background dressing, or similar. That's not to say this doesn't happen to some degree in other mediums, that's not to say every instance of these things happening is bad by any means, that's not to say males get perfect treatment, and that's not to say there aren't genuinely good female characters in some games, but take the major female characters from video games, measure them up to the male characters, and characters from other mediums, and it builds up a stark contrast.

What's more there seem to be a lot of women in the gaming audience who get a major amount of flack because they're women and God help any lady who actually wants to change the ways women are portrayed in games. Would you want to be a woman on Xbox LIVE? I wouldn't and I can certainly think of a lot of other places online where female gamers get plenty of abuse or just plain creeped on.

You say we should look to the history books on this issue and while that can be great for getting some perspective, I can't help but think the people in the history books who've made sure that the worst of the bigotry and discrimination have stopped in most parts of the world would be the last people to say that we should just roll over and accept that entire social groups are going to get shit on. If there's two things the history books can teach us about discrimination I think they're that 1. It can be stopped, and that 2. Good things happen when it is stopped. Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, these aren't the kind of things that should be accepted, they're the kinds of things that should be fought against.

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

#77  Edited By Dagbiker

@sBlacksmith: I was just trying to show people how they are different.

Avatar image for sblacksmith
sBlacksmith

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#78  Edited By sBlacksmith

@Dagbiker: I know, but the first to raise this point was using it to deny that factor.. saying 'boys will be boys' because it's in the genes and that's all.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
viking_funeral

2881

Forum Posts

57

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

#79  Edited By viking_funeral

@JuggernautSwagger said:

It is hard to look at both sides of an issue when the media only ever represents one side or the other. FoxNews only caters to the right and CNN caters left etc.

CNN tries so hard to cater to both sides of the political spectrum that it makes the U.S. version nearly uninformative and a complete bore to watch. Which is weird, because CNN International is actually a great source of business news, world events, and actual reporting.

Just report the damn news. I don't need to know what the talking heads of both American political parties think of some guy getting his face eaten.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80  Edited By flindip

@sBlacksmith said:

@Dagbiker: I know, but the first to raise this point was using it to deny that factor.. saying 'boys will be boys' because it's in the genes and that's all.

If your alluding to me, I never denied anything. I was responding to the ideas of gender roles and gender division being artificial social constructs.

Avatar image for wally
Wally

75

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81  Edited By Wally

Take Morgan Freeman's suggestion on racism and apply it to every social problem in existence.

Avatar image for wjb
wjb

2158

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82  Edited By wjb

@Mirked said:

@will_leisure said:

I always never know what to say in these threads because I get the feeling I'm speaking to inexperienced teenage boys or males with buried resentment towards women (or the "special treatment" women receive. I don't know what the means, exactly? Like "ladies night" at bars, I guess? Ordering first at restaurants?). I've said this in another thread, but I'm an adult white, heterosexual male. I feel like I have nothing to really complain about (at least compared to others), and I'm totally okay with that. I'm not understanding the rampant displays of victimization of the male gender here. I understand that they feel like their lifestyle is being "threatened" by evil feminists, but I think males have done quite well for themselves since...ever. Awesome show, great job, guys!

This is one example of the kinds of gender inequality that men face. Another example would be in domestic disputes. If a man calls the cops because his wife/partner is beating him he is seen as a sissy, or also the fact that the man will be the one going to jail and not the woman, usually. Fact is that it does exist on both sides, but not in the same ways. Arguing who has it worse just degrades the issue. Denying it exists for men entirely is just ignorance.

I could've done without the link. At least have the decency to give some warning next time.

Avatar image for bibamatt
bibamatt

1133

Forum Posts

5166

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 19

#83  Edited By bibamatt

While I don't agree with OP's points, I appreciate the thread and the amount of time that some people have put into some of the posts in it. Ignoring a few childish comments, it's a great read from both sides of the argument. I think it's important to have these discussions. Especially in a medium like videogames where, from the outside, it's often seen as a 'toy' or for kids. But there are really deep social issues evident in the medium and it's vital that these things are noted and commented on. In my opinion, the portrayal of women in videogames is lightyears behind most other forms of entertainment and it's important to call out games/examples when they blatantly step over the line.

Keep up the discussions guys, it's always interesting. Boo to the people who talk down these threads. They're super relevant to the medium.

Avatar image for pekoe212
pekoe212

536

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#84  Edited By pekoe212

@Clonedzero said:

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

i believe what he was saying was that not all gender roles and divisions are social constraints. some are for example like your pointless color thing. males are more aggressive and dominate because they're biologically programmed to be. females are more nurturing and submissive, because again, they're biologically programmed to be. obviously we can overcome these instinctual presets, but to deny they exist is ridiculous.

the base fight or flight response, men are more prone to fight, while women are more prone to flight. again, obviously the reverse can happen, but thats the normal reactions to things.

these base level biological instinctual reactions bleed into culture and society.

If men are the leaders and women the passive nurturers then how do you explain that matriarchal societies ruled all over the world before the rise of monotheism? I think a lot of the behaviors we witness in the majority of men and women are programmed by the way we are treated differently from the time we are infants. They have done studies showing that parents who self-proclaimed no gender bias treated their infants differently based on their sex. Female infants were rewarded for being quiet, and were scolded for crying. Male infants were rewarded when they cried and screamed. We already know we can reprogram and change how our brains work and what our instincts are. I'm not saying there aren't some big differences between males and females, but a lot of the ones we think are biological are just behaviors and perceptions so ingrained in our culture that we can't even see them. We are still looking through the lenses of two thousand years ago. We know nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

Avatar image for flindip
flindip

547

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By flindip

@pekoe212 said:

@Clonedzero said:

@Chroma_Auron said:

The treatment@flindip: Gender roles and gender divisions are social constraints. Lets use colors that are associated with genders as an example. Today we associate blue with boys and pink with girls but this was not like that before the 1900's were no colors associated with gender and kids would even were dresses. Children were treated as genderless until puberty this went on until the 1950's. During the 1920's through 1940's colors started being used due to marketing purposes. At this time pink was for males and blue was for females.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

https://www.history.org/history/clothing/children/child01.cfm

i believe what he was saying was that not all gender roles and divisions are social constraints. some are for example like your pointless color thing. males are more aggressive and dominate because they're biologically programmed to be. females are more nurturing and submissive, because again, they're biologically programmed to be. obviously we can overcome these instinctual presets, but to deny they exist is ridiculous.

the base fight or flight response, men are more prone to fight, while women are more prone to flight. again, obviously the reverse can happen, but thats the normal reactions to things.

these base level biological instinctual reactions bleed into culture and society.

If men are the leaders and women the passive nurturers then how do you explain that matriarchal societies ruled all over the world before the rise of monotheism? I think a lot of the behaviors we witness in the majority of men and women are programmed by the way we are treated differently from the time we are infants. They have done studies showing that parents who self-proclaimed no gender bias treated their infants differently based on their sex. Female infants were rewarded for being quiet, and were scolded for crying. Male infants were rewarded when they cried and screamed. We already know we can reprogram and change how our brains work and what our instincts are. I'm not saying there aren't some big differences between males and females, but a lot of the ones we think are biological are just behaviors and perceptions so ingrained in our culture that we can't even see them. We are still looking through the lenses of two thousand years ago. We know nothing, as far as I'm concerned.

But those societies that predate patriarchal ones before monotheism were not female centric or female dominated. It was essentially organized anarchy, and power positions did not exist. Its different from what we consider matriarchal societies in any meaningful sense like (as I pointed out earlier)ancient Crete. Where women were only allowed to be priestesses and have political power based on religious beliefs. On top of that, our knowledge of those pre-civilization societies is limited in an anthropology sense(we don't really know much about prehistory-most of its completely theoretical). The data can be just as unreliable as what you feel are normed perception of sexes.

Also, you should watch the video I embedded earlier which deals with those exact studies you are talking about. It is also a very contested view point to how well we really override our instincts. No real cut and dry answer.

Avatar image for awkwardloser
AwkwardLoser

240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86  Edited By AwkwardLoser

I think once someone's self esteem gets shot, it becomes harder for them to empathize and thus they can become bitter and mean. This causes them to effect the self esteem of others, which snowballs into the issues we have today.