# Not just for women - NTs and feminism



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

What are your opinions on gender?


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

By the way, in case you didn't know:
Liberal= Usually, but don't always believe that men and women are relatively equal nowadays. Want equality in every way possible. Not man hating.
Radical= Somewhat anti-man, still believe society is extremely patriarchal. Separatist. Believe in political lesbianism.


----------



## knittigan (Sep 2, 2011)

Your understanding of liberal and radical feminisms is incredibly oversimplistic (not to mention stereotypical, even straw person-like), by virtue of which (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), I'm going to assume that you don't really subscribe to either of them to any real extent.

Your question about gender is a little open-ended. My views on gender are complex. At the most basic level: that there is a distinction between sex and gender, that a person's gender is something not biologically innate but is socially constructed, does not express an inherent truth about any particular individual but becomes meaningful within a certain sociopolitical context.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

I voted female liberal feminist.

My views aren't very complex, believe it or not. I think men and women are equal. Yes, there are physical differences, but in today's office-cubicle work world, that wouldn't make much of a difference.

People say there are emotional differences between men and women, but I think the dividing line can be sort of fuzzy. There's emotional men, and not-so emotional women. I think some of the gender stereotypes are less natural, and more embedded into people at young ages by society.

These are just my opinions, though.


----------



## Chipps (Jun 1, 2011)

I also voted liberal female feminist. Nothing is worse than a "man hater" who needs to "empower women". Those people are so laughable. That also goes for men who think women should be the submissive partner.


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

knittigan said:


> Your understanding of liberal and radical feminisms is incredibly oversimplistic (not to mention stereotypical, even straw person-like), by virtue of which (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), I'm going to assume that you don't really subscribe to either of them to any real extent.


I'm genuinely not being sarcastic here - please could you explain the two types in more detail? Those are the definitions I learnt in school. I should probably do my own research first (my dad tells me to do this all the time - INTJ/ENTP dynamic haha)


----------



## r00bic0n (Apr 27, 2011)

Sorry I'm not an NT whoops!

Liberal feminist. I do think, however, that society (mine, at least) is still patriarchal, obviously, and still sexist. Doesn't mean I hate men though. I love people in general, I just think there are a lot of inherently sexist views which are held as "common sense" (like the fact that women can't be logical, actually enjoy cleaning, think richer men are better etc.). Even if they're not held as common sense, they're still acceptable "jokes". Thing is, I don't dislike the jokes because they are offensive, I dislike them because they are simplistic, overused, not clever and unfunny, and they propogate an unhealthy and unnecessary stereotype.

I mean think about it - the world has been run by men for how many thousands of years. Feminists had a movement last century. After building the world around the interests of men and from a male perspective, the world has been set in motion that way - it would (and will) take a long time for society to be less patriarchal. And for attitudes to change. I think things are improving, I just really don't like it when people say that women aren't objects of sexism. My reasoning? The sexual objectification of women, lower pay rates (pre-pregnancy) for starters. Plus I was doing some research for further education courses the other day and came across this sentence on Harvard's recruitment website: "*Harvard University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and members of minority groups are especially encouraged to apply."
* 
I know it's giving women an advantage, I just think it's positive discrimination - which proves women are still considered a "minority" (??) or underprivileged group.

Having said that, I would not say I'm radical. I believe we are all equal and should treat each other as individuals, not categories. What feminism means to me is that women deserve equal rights, as does anyone from any subgroup of the population. Male feminists are awesome


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

i dont think men and women are equal, and its remarkably shortsighted to think so, the way thats phrased is even an oversimplification

i think they are different and require different considerations ...


now..do we live in a patriarchy?..yes 
but the alternative would be to live in a matriarchy , which wouldnt solve anything it would just switch pressure from one gender to the other and we'd get masculinist , and someone would make a thread similar to this and i would give a similar answer
(...or some sort of utopian society, but utopias are nonsensical )


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

I voted male non-feminist, even though I might be considered a _de facto_ liberal feminist if my ideas were to be placed on the 'spectrum' of a different cultural context. Basically, I care too much about equal rights to call myself a feminist, but I do sympathize with _some_ feminist efforts.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Male liberal feminist, but with a strong belief that 'feminism' carries too many connotations of fighting against an oppressive patriarchy, when these days, it's not that black and white. There is, in my opinion, too much focus on trying to further the cause of women without looking at the social causes behind these inequalities. The problem with a lot of gender discussions, is that people feel imprisoned by the expectations put on them because of their gender, and I think it's these expectations that we have to deal with. It's not so much that we have to get more female CEO's, it's that we shouldn't _expect_ a CEO to be male: Once that is accomplished, it will balance out. I promote gender indifference as a means of furthering equality, something positive discrimination quota's won't help with. We shouldn't expect the mechanic to be male, and we shouldn't frown at the nurse who is. Also, I find that we live in a cultural patriarchy, but in matters of law and practice - it's a lot more complicated. Fathers rights is a real issue for instance; it shocks me that our culture is telling men to be a bigger part of children's lives, when fathers are continually undermined in the court system. We also need to question what is going on in the bottom of the hierarchy. Rather than ask: "Why do women have a harder time climbing the career ladder?", we need to ask "Why are so many women attempting suicide compared to men?", and find out how this relates. Equality should start at the bottom, not at the top. We also need to ask questions that are not necessarily about these positions of power, like: why are there so many men in jail compared to women? Why are most homeless people men?

In general, I believe that people speak too much about 'female' and 'male', when it should be a matter of individualism. And it always surprises me when people think, that they can improve the quality of life of one group, without affecting the other as if women and men were isolated from each other. Gender roles are so deeply connected to each other, that my nostrils immediately flare when someone says "This is a women's issue". Clearly, it's a societal issue, not a women's issue. To quote Henrik Ibsen, the 19th century Norwegian playwright:

"_I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League. Whatever I have written has been without any conscious thought of making propaganda. I have been more poet and less social philosopher than people generally seem inclined to believe. I thank you for the toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for the women’s rights movement. I am not even quite clear as to just what this women’s rights movement really is. To me it has seemed a problem of humanity in general._"


----------



## r00bic0n (Apr 27, 2011)

SPtheGhost said:


> i dont think men and women are equal, and its remarkably shortsighted to think so, the way thats phrased is even an oversimplification
> 
> i think they are different and require different considerations ...


Oh shit I should have said equivalent. I mean equal in terms of "value", not traits per se. So yeah the word equivalent is more what I'm saying. I realise men and women are different (although not always in the ways we are led to believe) - and that is part of the beauty of human nature. Not denying that in the slightest. Just would argue that male-dominated Western cultures (don't know enough about other cultures to say...) value women less, in terms of social/consensual representations. 



SPtheGhost said:


> now..do we live in a patriarchy?..yes
> but the alternative would be to live in a matriarchy , which wouldnt solve anything it would just switch pressure from one gender to the other and we'd get masculinist , and someone would make a thread similar to this and i would give a similar answer
> (...or some sort of utopian society, but utopias are nonsensical )


Don't think it's necessarily an either/or situation. That's a theoretical and constructed dichotomy you're (we're) stuck in there. I think there is such think as a collaboration. There are many ways of doing things that have not even been conceived of yet. I do not believe that patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options. Haha I agree I do not want men to be oppressed...wouldn't want that for anyone. Collaborative rather than oppositional thinking is what I'm interested in...


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

dalsgaard said:


> Male liberal feminist, but with a strong belief that 'feminism' carries too many connotations of fighting against an oppressive patriarchy, when these days, it's not that black and white. There is, in my opinion, too much focus on trying to further the cause of women without looking at the social causes behind these inequalities. The problem with a lot of gender discussions, is that people feel imprisoned by the expectations put on them because of their gender, and I think it's these expectations that we have to deal with. It's not so much that we have to get more female CEO's, it's that we shouldn't _expect_ a CEO to be male: Once that is accomplished, it will balance out. I promote gender indifference as a means of furthering equality, something positive discrimination quota's won't help with. We shouldn't expect the mechanic to be male, and we shouldn't frown at the nurse who is. Also, I find that we live in a cultural patriarchy, but in matters of law and practice - it's a lot more complicated. Fathers rights is a real issue for instance; it shocks me that our culture is telling men to be a bigger part of children's lives, when fathers are continually undermined in the court system. We also need to question what is going on in the bottom of the hierarchy. Rather than ask: "Why do women have a harder time climbing the career ladder?", we need to ask "Why are so many women attempting suicide compared to men?", and find out how this relates. Equality should start at the bottom, not at the top. We also need to ask questions that are not necessarily about these positions of power, like: why are there so many men in jail compared to women? Why are most homeless people men?
> 
> In general, I believe that people speak too much about 'female' and 'male', when it should be a matter of individualism. And it always surprises me when people think, that they can improve the quality of life of one group, without affecting the other as if women and men were isolated from each other. Gender roles are so deeply connected to each other, that my nostrils immediately flare when someone says "This is a women's issue". Clearly, it's a societal issue, not a women's issue. To quote Henrik Ibsen, the 19th century Norwegian playwright:
> 
> "_I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League. Whatever I have written has been without any conscious thought of making propaganda. I have been more poet and less social philosopher than people generally seem inclined to believe. I thank you for the toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for the women’s rights movement. I am not even quite clear as to just what this women’s rights movement really is. To me it has seemed a problem of humanity in general._"


COULD NOT AGREE MORE.

Although some basic laws and systems should be changed, for example women getting 9 months maternity leave and men only getting 2 - 3 weeks paternity leave. If this was changed, it could also help even out issues in the workplace, as a lot of the time female workers are seen as less valuable because they're seen as too committed to the family or there's a maternity leave risk. If you want evidence for this, read "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine. Considering what you just said, I think you'd really like it.


----------



## Somnio (Oct 3, 2011)

Liberal feminist. Pretty die hard, but I stopped expressing views openly because if I define myself as a feminist, people assume that I hate men or want a female dominated society. No. No. No. 
I believe in equality, but that goes for men as well. Men should not be ridiculed for being feminine, this is much worse for them than when females act masculine. I hate it when my friends say, "Oh, I'm feminist too! I think males should always pay for dinner too!" Makes me want to facepalm all the way to Timbuktu. I like equality, I hate rigid hierarchies. Genders should be treated equality without preconceptions of how they SHOULD act.

But this society is indeed still sexist, it's blissfully ignorant when people deny it. Women are still treated as sex objects, just turn on the TV. And men who do not act like the hypermasculine ideal are ridiculed as "gay". I have a male friend who was going to become a nurse and people raised eyebrows at him. I really wished that society wasn't so judgemental. And we all know that one chauvinist guy who you happen to be aquainted to who spews a bunch of self righteous "men need porn n sex n beer lolol women go away u tok it all frum us, go bak into der kitchenz!" 

Someday it'll change, hopefully. The feminist movement is relatively new while patriarchy has been around for thousands of years.


----------



## r00bic0n (Apr 27, 2011)

Somnio said:


> I stopped expressing views openly because if I define myself as a feminist, people assume that I hate men or want a female dominated society. No. No. No.


Common misconception. I think the word feminist needs to be changed to something a bit less partisan, maybe?


Somnio said:


> I hate it when my friends say, "Oh, I'm feminist too! I think males should always pay for dinner too!"Makes me want to facepalm all the way to Timbuktu.


Ha! Made me laugh out loud. This has happened to me. I was summarising my views at work once when the girl next to me chimed in and started talking about "our race" and the oppression we've gone through, and used some pretty chauvinist arguments to back me up...it was really awkward.


Somnio said:


> But this society is indeed still sexist, it's blissfully ignorant when people deny it. Women are still treated as sex objects, just turn on the TV.


Completely agree.


Somnio said:


> And we all know that one chauvinist guy who you happen to be aquainted to who spews a bunch of self righteous "men need porn n sex n beer lolol women go away u tok it all frum us, go bak into der kitchenz!"
> 
> Someday it'll change, hopefully. The feminist movement is relatively new while patriarchy has been around for thousands of years.


Yeah I know many of those guys, disguised as respectable open-minded fun-loving people. Scary.
And true, hopefully things will continue to improve.


----------



## Somnio (Oct 3, 2011)

r00bic0n said:


> Common misconception. I think the word feminist needs to be changed to something a bit less partisan, maybe?


 HAH yeah, I've always thought the same thing. I think "equalist" or something would have struck less chords. There's a lot of anti-feminism out there, with people assuming the wrong definition of feminism. Even women today who support the "cause" are often just man-bashing, I feel like people don't really know what feminism is anymore. 
...which makes me wonder if the progresses are going to stop soon or go the wrong way.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Feminism I don't even know what that entails anymore.
To me it symbolizes female hatred toward men.
As any ism before it it is wrecking havoc on our society.
It has already reached a tipping point where women aren't fighting for rights anymore, but for privilege.
Us poor women we need *special* consideration in this area and that.
Bah humbug...


----------



## goodgracesbadinfluence (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't actually know how to vote, so I'll explain what I think. 

I think men and women should be treated equally and all that. But I don't think women should be given equal rights just because they're women. Like... if I'm hiring someone for a construction job, I'm probably not going to hire a woman unless she can do the job I need her to do. If that makes sense. I think for the most part men and women do have equal rights. But I also think we need to work on fixing the social double standard for both sexes. Sorry if this disjointed. My thoughts on this matter are difficult to verbalise.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

I suppose that I am a liberal feminist, but I've never really thought about it.

I'm just for a gender-blind society. I've said this on many threads before, but I think there are simply better traits to judge a person by.

As far as the differences are concerned, I've got an effectiveness point to throw in. So here goes:

I am a hiring manager at a construction company. It is my job to find the most qualified individual to help dig ditches. It's tough manual labor, and the resulting employee should be able to handle that kind of work. I am going to interview both men and women for the position. Why? If I exclude all women, I might miss some very qualified employees.

Now, I'll give you all one point that some have hinted at. If we all (hypothetically) took a sample of ALL women and men on the earth, I'd bet that men would be more likely to be suited to this kind of work (assuming we had accurate measures of the characteristics needed, and that we had a perfect survey to measure those. This kind of assumes hypothetical perfection in every area). If we took the same sample and asked about emotions, I bet that women would score more emotional than would men.

My point is that NONE OF THIS MATTERS. It doesn't matter that women (hypothetically) have a statistical proclivity to be smaller and more emotional. If I want to avoid missing a good employee, I have to take things on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the hypothetical differences between the genders would affect nothing at all, because I'm not generalizing when I examine case-by-case.

Anyone who suggests that the differences matter is usually doing so because they're looking to include or exclude the whole group from [random box 1]. "Women aren't as good at hard labor" "Women are more emotional" "Men are more cool-headed" "Men are stronger." Even if these things were true, one commits a grave error by allowing them to affect his/her judgment.


----------



## r00bic0n (Apr 27, 2011)

Sovereign said:


> Anyone who suggests that the differences matter is usually doing so because they're looking to include or exclude the whole group from [random box 1]. "Women aren't as good at hard labor" "Women are more emotional" "Men are more cool-headed" "Men are stronger." Even if these things were true, one commits a grave error by allowing them to affect his/her judgment.


Yup. Black and white thinking - too much of it out there.


----------



## Fodzy (Mar 29, 2011)

Put simply: equality not interchangeability. Men and Women (or wombyn if you're inclined to complete lapses in intellectual judgement) are equally useful and incompetent with seperate roles which they fulfill. For example: men can't ovulate or fire out little "miracles" after a 9 month gestation period and women can't experience the sheer discomfort of a public erection. Of course, there are social and political roles which I could go into but I think I've made my point.


----------

