# People who are so vehemently against gender roles



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> Because many of them are based on incorrect understanding and stereotypes. I don't really care for people perpetuating inaccurate beliefs about groups of people. I dislike gender roles for the same reason I dislike stereotypes about Sensors, Black people, etc.


that doesn't mean it needs to constantly be brought up the way it is here. it's not just that fact that it's brought up either, but also the self righteous yet whiny and victim-y manner in which this is done. it's weak, pitiful and, in many cases, irresponsible. there was a time (at least in my country) when we used to scold people for shoving their emotional baggage onto others and not handling their feelings like an adult. I would like to see this practice become the norm again, because people really do need to grow up.



> They could cause me not to be taken seriously, *limit my economic opportunities*, make it difficult to be accepted by others if you don't play along, etc.


this is the only point of relevance, but you'd have to provide data that it does, in fact, do so. as for the acceptance of others, you are not entitled to be accepted. people have a right to have negative opinions of each other. that is why we are friends with some and not friends with others. people are not responsible for fulfilling your emotional needs unless you are in a relationship, and the world is never going to be some big happy family where everyone accepts each other (nor should it be. that would be a politically correct nightmare)



> If people only acted out gender roles of their own free will, I wouldn't care. The problem is that because people find them appealing, they compel others to play them out. Perhaps not with overt threats, but by denying opportunity and acceptance to people who don't conform. I'm not saying everyone would do this, but it's a prevalent enough attitude that it's an issue.


once again, if people don't want to accept you, they have every right not to, but causing a scene about it and being overly sensitive (I'm not accusing you personally of either, just in general) is definitely not going to prompt people to accept you. 



> Perhaps in theory, a subforum like this should allow for that. I can see why you would want to have those discussions without being censured. But in reality, you're expecting something rather unreasonable. Think about it. This is primarily a psychology forum that attracts intellectuals who want to deconstruct everything, who are likely to have postmodern views, and who feel oppressed by society. That will bleed over into this section, because that's the nature of the beast.


that's not an excuse to derail threads left and right, which has been the issue from the get go. I have nothing against people discussing such topics on appropriate threads, merely the amount to which it bleeds onto and derails other threads.



> I would suggest that if you want to find a forum where the majority of people are comfortable with their sexuality and aren't frustrated with society and gender roles... you may want to look into joining a forum that's primarily dedicated to sex and relationships, rather than just a subforum in a place you frequent.


there is a difference between being uncomfortable with some aspect of your sexuality and expecting others to cater to and console your insecurities, which is what I'm seeing a lot of here. if you are butthurt about something, it is _your_ responsibility to deal with, not mine. 



> Telling people that they just have to grow up and have courage because you have... desires is a little immature on your part. Perhaps the people who are derailing your threads are also immature, but what you're doing here is no better


expecting people to stay on topic is not immature. it's like asking a gay guy not to constantly bring up points about giving blow jobs in the middle of class. 



> You are in a place that attracts many who have trauma associated with the kind of thing you want to dismiss, and I don't think it's wise of you to be insensitive to that fact.


once again, 
- trauma is not an excuse to derail threads.
- talking about traumatic experiences is well and good in topical threads.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) why do you care so much?


I'm not against people adhering to gender roles. I'm against people trying to force others to adhere to gender roles, and then punishing all those who don't. I care because this kind of thinking leads to nothing but oppression and social dysfunction.



> 2) what real power over you do they have in the first place?


The same kind of power that allows my employer to fire me because I'm a woman who "looks" like a man. And yes, gender identity IS a gender role, and thus relevant to this topic. Gender roles exert power over women when it comes to them being promoted (or not) for managerial and top administrative positions (which is why women can make up 70% of the Nation's teaching force, but only 18% of the nation's Superintendents - In Search of Leaders: Gender Factors in School Administration | Advancing Women In Leadership Journal). And let's not ignore how gender roles cause systematic discrimination against men who have become victims of sexual/domestic abuse while they were _adults_.



> 3) if other people find them appealing, who cares?


Other people finding them appealing is one thing. Those same people trying to force others to adhere to gender roles is another :dry:. If society wasn't structured on forcing people into these superficial gender boxes, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.



> I come to this forum to talk about _sex and sexy topics, not listen to self righteous, pseudo-oppressed, post modernist dribble about gender roles, restriction, etc. like, seriously, just stop. it's not accomplishing anything and it's flooding this subforum to a degree that makes me want to shoot myself._


Also, if you're talking about the obnoxious threads that I think you are, then let's be clear that those topics are not really about having a legitimate discussion on gender roles. They seem to be nothing more than a circle jerk where people can rant about being upset that Sally didn't fall for their charms and give up her pussy. There's a big FUCKING DIFFERENCE b/w an actual discussion about gender roles, and people who complain about not being sexually rewarded for their "niceness" (not to mention the never-ending "_here's why feminism sucks_" threads).


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

I have never seen anything wrong with gender roles. I actually prefer them, and I love mine.

My opinion is not cool these days, so I do not share it, ever.

I tend to feel bullied and put down by those who think otherwise.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Amine


> It's definitely not pointless. Society's awareness of the issue, in general, is dim at best.


society only needs to be aware of something if it's relevant. 



> Ignoring haters is appropriate sometimes, but not all the time


yes, and that time is when the haters can _actually do something to you_, such as take away your rights, coerce your behavior or invade your privacy. 
once again, the problem here is 
1) context
2) inappropriately emotional response. there is nothing wrong with pointing out that you think a certain gender role is stupid, what's annoying is when people play victim and go white knighting about everything. that's retarded and pathetic
ex: women and makeup 
*appropriate response:* "it's stupid that I'm expected to wear makeup, so screw'em! I'm going all natural"
*immature response:* "society expects me to wear makeup! the Patriarchy is oppressing me! :angry: :crying: "
^this is a bit of an exaggeration (as well as an example of a different issue), but you get my point.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

SouthernSaxon said:


> 1. Gender roles are inbuilt into everyone.


There is no concrete science to prove this.



> It's a biological reality that men and women are different,


Biological difference does not mean social or even psychological difference.



> and that difference evolved and survived for millions of years for a good reason - it provided stability.


No. You are putting intent in nature that doesn't exist. We know little to nothing about how humans organized in terms of gender past a certain historical point. Anything thus becomes speculation and therefore this stability argument doesn't apply either. Evolution only works insofar that natural selection increases the species' survival. Stability has nothing to do with it. It just so happened that the sexual development humans have happened to be what seemed to have worked the best for us and our ancestors. That's all there is to it. It only appears "stable" because humans have successfully managed to remove most threats to our survival when it comes to our particular method of reproduction. 

And now we might even argue that with the advent of modern technology helping humans to reproduce, that we are _transcending_ it. Hence, stability argument doesn't apply when another woman can carry a couple's child, or when a woman can get pregnant without the direct sexual involvement of a man, or when a woman born with a penis can have her penis turned into a vagina and possibly in the future even become pregnant and bear children or when a man with a vagina and a penis can bear children. 

Your reality of sex and gender is too simplistic. 



> With all the feminist movements, we now have skyrocketing divorce rates and generations of women who are on average, more stressed and less happy than they were in the past.


You make it seem as if the only way women can be happy is to be married. Also, you have no evidence to support that women were less stressed in the past because then people didn't even talk about women's issues. I may however wish to point you towards some of Freud's works with hysterical women just to give you an idea of how it was like to live as a woman during say, the Victorian era. Happy was certainly not the word he would use to describe them. 



> As well as a generation of men, myself included, who aren't getting married in a hurry.


As if that's a bad thing? Nothing's stopping you from getting married with the right person after you turn into a legal adult. 



> It's one giant clusterfuck and a great way for a civilisation to commit suicide.


No, you know how to make people commit suicide? Force them into a life where they only live for others rather than themselves like say, Japan, where highschool students are forced into studying so much and so hard in order to fulfill the desires of the family and society of being a productive citizen that they commit suicide when they can't live up to these ideals. Or people who work for telemarketing companies and get an extreme low salary despite working extra, and despite being monitored every minute of their day and yelled at if they don't live up to expectations. 

Now, if we take this analogy further, expecting women to marry even if they don't want to or don't like the guy is essentially the same thing. 



> Though I do like pissing off feminists online for the lulz, I care because I am a guy who wants to be able to get married and have a large family someday like my parents and grandparents and their parents before them did, without getting divorced and having half my assets stolen.


LOL. So here comes the real issue. Your issue isn't that you actually care about women and what is good for them, but you only care about getting what you think you are entitled to have. Marriage and relationships are a two-way street. It's not just about what you want, but it's about what _they_ want. A healthy relationship is about learning to compromise. Regardless, I'm quite sure there are girls out there who love getting married early and having plenty of kids because there's nothing inherent about feminism that says they shouldn't as long it's done out of free choice. Thus, I don't see the problem. It's not like you are unique harboring these conservative values. 



> 2. The assault on gender roles has affected women more than men.


No. If that's true then you wouldn't sit here whining about it. 



> Of course men are still expected to do all the traditional masculine things for women (approach them, take care of them, and so on), but the difference is that now women don't have to keep their end of the deal.


The point of feminism is to highlight both of these issues, not just one of them. 



> 3. They have to care mate. It's their life...


???

Care is last time I checked a mutual thing and should not simply be placed upon one individual.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@KINGoftheAMAZONS
if your only qualm is people forcing gender roles on others, we don't disagree on much there. my point is that there is a big difference between societal expectation and forced compliance. my previous post is an example of societal expectation. an example of forced compliance would be a mother forcing her 6yo daughter into strict, judgmental beauty pageants or a father forcing his INFP 6w5 son to become a star football player while at school. when people talk about being forced to comply with something, I listen; if it's a dumb social expectation they can easily ignore, I roll my eyes and dismiss them.



> The same kind of power that allows my employer to fire me because I'm a woman who "looks" like a man. And yes, gender identity IS a gender role, and thus relevant to this topic. Gender roles exert power over women when it comes to them being promoted (or not) for managerial and top administrative positions (which is why women can make up 70% of the Nation's teaching force, but only 18% of the nation's Superintendents - In Search of Leaders: Gender Factors in School Administration | Advancing Women In Leadership Journal). *And let's not ignore how gender roles cause systematic discrimination against men who have become victims of sexual/domestic abuse while they were adults.*


thank you for not being one sided


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> my previous post is an example of societal expectation. an example of forced compliance would be a mother forcing her 6yo daughter into strict, judgmental beauty pageants or a father forcing his INFP 6w5 son to become a star football player while at school.


Huh? What if the social expectation IS for girls to care more about their "beauty" than anything else, and for boys to be good at masculine things like sports? If these are the social expectations that girls and boys are expected to adhere to (under the threat of peer pressure or worse), then how we can logically say that there is an "exclusive" difference between forced compliance and social expectations... when social expectations are the very things which caused the forceful compliance in the first place? 



> when people talk about being forced to comply with something, I listen; if it's a dumb social expectation they can easily ignore, I roll my eyes and dismiss them.


Can you give an example of what you're talking about? I'm just trying to understand what type of things you are dismissive about? Unless you're like me in that you're dismissive of anyone who whines about not getting their entitled "fair share" of pussy?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> Huh? What if the social expectation IS for girls to care more about their "beauty" than anything else, and for boys to be good at masculine things like sports?


then you do what I've done all my life: you ignore them. 



> If these are the social expectations that girls and boys are expected to adhere to (under the threat of peer pressure or worse)


- define "worse?"
- people who succumb to peer pressure are weak and pathetic. they deserve neither my pity nor my concern



> then how we can logically say that there is a difference between forced compliance and social expectations... when social expectations are the very things which causes forceful compliance in the first place?


because the only repercussions for social expectations in which one is not forced to comply are social/emotional in nature. for example, people have a right to hold racist views; they do not have a right to lynch black people. there are plenty of racist who do not outwardly express discrimination (in fact, they're probably a majority), but, while I disagree with their viewpoints, they don't really require much attention because they are not a tangible problem. 



> Can you give an example of what you're talking about? I'm just trying to understand what type of things you are dismissive about?


*dismissible comment:*
- "society expects me to wear makeup! the patriarchy is oppressing me! :crying: "
- "the other boys at school don't like me because I don't play sports! they're discriminating against me!"
- "people think I'm weird because I'm gay"
- "people assume I eat fried chicken everyday because I'm black. that's racial prejudice!"

*legitimate concern:* 
- "my mom punishes me for not wearing makeup"
- "I get beat up and shoved in lockers because I am a boy who likes art and playing dress up"
- "my rights to marriage are restricted because I'm gay"
- "no one will hire for a job because I'm black" (assuming this is actually the reason)



> Unless you're like me in that you're dismissive of anyone who whines about not getting their entitled "fair share" of pussy?


I am :tongue:
that shit's pathetic :laughing:


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> Oh okay. I got the impression the thread was sort of meant to complain about it rather than actually asking.
> 
> I don't really have answers for you anyway. I don't really care what people do as long as nobody tries to make me do anything. And I agree, I am terribly sick of friendzoning, fuckzoning, and which gender has it worse than the other. Most of my friends are male. I don't encounter shit like this in the real world. We'll joke about it but I don't actually know anyone who gets bogged down with it.
> 
> ...


 @BlackDog,

Here are a couple of timely quotes about the topic of the thread, and the thread itself, from the inimitable P.J. O'Rourke: 
_
Anyone who has studied psychology, sociology, anthropology, or any of the other wacko-and-wog disciplines knows the three great rules of the social sciences: Folks do lots of things. We don't know why. Test on Friday. _
_
There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible._
_
There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself. _
_
There are no kinder or better people in the world than those who listen to you when you're eighteen._


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@g_w


> Anyone who has studied psychology, sociology, anthropology, or any of the other wacko-and-wog disciplines knows the three great rules of the social sciences: Folks do lots of things. We don't know why. Test on Friday.


this is extremely dismissive and is essentially saying "studying anything that isn't quantifiable is a waste of time"

I liked the other two quotes though, particularly the one about governance in a free society.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Amine said:


> It's a revolution, man. You gotta let it have its time. I think it is great that we are moving from black and white to a full spectrum. Once people have accepted and integrated it, we'll move on and uncover something else about ourselves that needs addressing. I think it's kind of cool that this is happening. From my perspective, it is a manifestation of the social change that is accompanying our rapid technological change. These events will be happening more and more, I believe.
> 
> It is possible to get overzealous, as it is with anything, and some people do. I just read an article in which Steven Pinker addressed the fact that not as many women are in, for instance, the sciences as men. To that, he said "maybe it is a fundamental difference in the nature of men and women, not merely socialization. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does not mean we shouldn't continue to judge everyone on an individual basis and welcome everyone into whatever profession they choose, regardless of whether it is stereotypical." Very enlightened


It's a [email protected] shame that Larry Summers (former President of Harvard, and the youngest person ever to have received a PhD from Harvard) got fired for saying essentially the same thing.

I think one of the issues is simply that even though -- as you said -- people should be welcomed into whatever profession they choose, that doesn't mean that social planners should attempt to "stuff the pipeline" with appropriate numbers of whatever the identity-group-of-the-week happens to be, in order to get an optimal or equable proportion of all types INTO each profession, just so the planners can go around feeling enlightened.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_g_w_
> 
> this is extremely dismissive and is essentially saying "studying anything that isn't quantifiable is a waste of time"
> 
> I liked the other two quotes though, particularly the one about governance in a free society.


 @Swordsman of Mana

Please read @_BlackDog_'s complaint about having to write the 15-page paper, to which I was responding; I was being humorously sympathetic.

(It's not a waste of time; it is that with people, there are too many variables to control for all at once, and we are constantly finding *new* items which nobody ever thought to incorporate into their models, in order to have the degree of precision in predictions which are found in the hard sciences. And thank God for that, otherwise every dystopian novel ever written would come true through efficacious mind control.)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

g_w said:


> @Swordsman of Mana
> Please read @_BlackDog_'s complaint about having to write the 15-page paper, to which I was responding; I was being humorously sympathetic.
> (It's not a waste of time; it is that with people, there are too many variables to control for all at once, and we are constantly finding *new* items which nobody ever thought to incorporate into their models, in order to have the degree of precision in predictions which are found in the hard sciences. And thank God for that, otherwise every dystopian novel ever written would come true through efficacious mind control.)


I see, I took your quote a bit too seriously


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

In my local environment no one, not even in the slightest respect adheres to gender roles. I think it's more likely to be put down today for a girl to act in a way gender roles were fashioned. Not a single girl acts like a girl or dresses like a girl would have in times passed. They are so fervently against doing "girly" things that I'd be damned to a see a girl even wear a skirt. So really I have no idea what forces are crushing freedoms but if they do exist where I live then the females and the males are clearly resistant or apathetic to it and if you think you're being oppressed by something then ignore it because it's someone's opinion and they can't make you do a thing. If you want to be free to do whatever you want then just do it, nobody is saying it can't be done. If society says "women should wear makeup" is that "pressure"? Is society a tv screen or advertisement telling you what to wear? I see feel no pressure at all and that's because I choose not to.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> then you do what I've done all my life: you ignore them.


Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. And not everyone is an environment where they can safely ignore the social expectations of their families or communities.



> - define "worse?"


Bullying, violence, harassment, etc.



> - people who succumb to peer pressure are weak and pathetic. they deserve neither my pity nor my concern


People who succumb to peer pressure are "human". Do I think people need to actively take charge of their lives? Sure. But again, if a person is forced to make choices underneath the threat of bullying or violence, then it's not hard to see why many people choose to conform to mainstream standards.



> because the only repercussions for social expectations in which one is not forced to comply are social/emotional in nature. for example, people have a right to hold racist views; they do not have a right to lynch black people.


What? The social expectations that stem directly from racism causes much harm to racial minorities, regardless of the fact that they can't be lynched anymore. Racist social expectations (including racial stereotypes) has led to an overrepresentation of blacks/Hispanics in the prison systems (because white criminals are shown more leniency by Judges), and recently it gave justification for the murder of a black male who walked through a gated community with a pack of skittles in his pocket. It also tends to lead to cops shooting black people who were later proven to be unarmed, and not a threat to them. And let's not forget the attempted mass deportations of brown-skinned illegal residents that conveniently never seems to target *illegal white immigrants* from Italy, or Russia, or France, etc. 

Social expectations are eventually manifested in the physical world. They are NOT just emotions and social figments of our abstract consciousness. They always lead to action, and to the formation of a society's building blocks. And that is why it is completely silly to try to separate social expectations from forced compliance; because if society expects that something should be done, then it will shape its civilization's socio-political foundations to mimic these same social expectations.



> *dismissible comment:
> - "society expects me to wear makeup!** t**he patriarchy is oppressing me! :crying: "
> - "the other boys at school don't like me because I don't play sports! they're discriminating against me!"
> - "people think I'm weird because I'm gay"
> ...


Dude! Don't you see the causation that you've created b/w the "dismissible comments" & the "legitimate concerns"?

Isn't it reasonable to intuit that a girl's mom would expect her to wear make-up, because *society expects girls to wear makeup*? 

Isn't it reasonable to intuit that an artistic boy is getting beat up because the other *boys don't like that he isn't playing sports*? 

The very reason that many people dislike gays (and gay marriage for that matter), is precisely because they *think it's weird*.

The social expectations of the dismissible comments are directly related to the issues that are legitimate concerns. Why? Because ideology leads to physical implementation. If people think that gays are weird, then they have a higher chance of setting up their society on the belief that being gay is in fact weird (which leads to discrimination). If people think a "normal" girl is supposed to wear makeup, then girls WILL be pressured (even by their parents) to wear makeup (so that they can be seen as normal). 

It is intellectually irresponsible to assume that the collective thought of a people in a society, doesn't eventually lead to the physical manifestation of these same ideologies. What you're suggesting is that people focus on the symptoms (which is where people get bullied or legally discriminated against), while also imploring people to completely ignore the disease itself (or the social expectations that originally justified the inferior treatment of a specific group of people). That kind of thinking doesn't help to cure medical patients, and it sure as hell isn't going to cure society of its social diseases.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Stop bringing fucking feminism into every topic just to drag it through shit, its pointless and must even get boring for you and others to keep typing out the same inflammatory stuff.
> 
> *I find it funny its a kinda hobby for you to annoy feminists online and then go and blame feminists for social decline*. Can't make it up folks.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk


It sounds like the classic "which came first, the chicken or the egg" problem; but in fact, it is not.

The attempt to destroy the nuclear family by destroying gender roles is an old Marxist theme:
The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage - A Woman Resident in Russia - The Atlantic

Note the source, not James Dobson's _Focus on the Family_--But _The Atlantic_. And not recently: *1926*, pre-World War 2 less than ten years after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia...

And feminism in the United States was promulgated and funded by a number oligarchical foundations ("rich white men") --

_In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for "faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women's Studies broadly construed." A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.

In the 1980s, under the direction of president Franklin Thomas, the focus of gender was placed onto all Ford grants and program officers were instructed to examine each and every proposal for its gender component. This moved the funding of women’s studies and other feminist enterprises from a women-specific grant category into all funding categories. By 1985, Ford had established the Women’s Program Forum, a consortium of grantmakers and Ford staffers tasked with keeping tabs on funding decisions being made worldwide on behalf of women’s issues. 

The creation of the Campus Diversity Initiative in 1990 took Ford in the direction of curriculum change. The grants given from this category are directed to sex-specific academic programs and departments in addition to other identified victim class groups. Of course, sex-specific really means women’s studies—no Ford executive would ever consider white male students in need of anything other than sensitivity training. _

Source: FrontPage Magazine - How the Ford Foundation Created Women's Studies

And if you don't like that source, consider the University of Michigan's Women's Studies department -- 

_ This volume of research and publication in Women's Studies has been supported by foundations and federal agencies. In the past few years, at least two major sources of funding of dissertation research have been specifically designated for Women's Studies (Woodrow Wilson Women's Research Grants; American Association of University Women). The National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, National Institute of Education, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Institute of Mental Health, and other agencies have given both support and visibility to research on women's studies.


_Source: Women's Studies Program Background

There's big money behind this...it's not all grass roots.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@KINGoftheAMAZONS
I'm talking about situations in which there is no threat of violence, abuse, legal punishment. what do I have to say to make that clear?



> People who succumb to peer pressure are "human". Do I think people need to actively take charge of their lives? Sure. But again, if a person is forced to make choices underneath the threat of bullying or violence, then it's not hard to see why many people choose to conform to mainstream standards.


that's not succumbing to peer pressure, it's being strategic and protecting yourself. peer pressure is when you do something primarily out of a desire for social acceptance or to impress your peers. 



> Dude! Don't you see the causation that you've created b/w the "dismissible comments" & the "legitimate concerns"?
> Isn't it reasonable to intuit that a girl's mom would expect her to wear make-up, because society expects girls to wear makeup?
> Isn't it reasonable to intuit that an artistic boy is getting beat up because the other boys don't like that he isn't playing sports?
> The very reason that many people dislike gays (and gay marriage for that matter), is precisely because they think it's weird.


no, it isn't. what's reasonable is to assume that people forcing their preferences onto others is the cause of these behaviors, not the preferences themselves. if people just minded their own business, this wouldn't be an issue, regardless of how society thinks a man/woman should act. 



> The social expectations of the dismissible comments are directly related to the issues that are legitimate concerns. Why? Because ideology leads to physical implementation. If people think that gays are weird, then they have a higher chance of setting up their society on the belief that being gay is in fact weird (which leads to discrimination). If people think a "normal" girl is supposed to wear makeup, then girls WILL be pressured (even by their parents) to wear makeup (so that they can be seen as normal).


ideology does NOT always lead to physical implementation. this only happens when people stop minding their own business and try to control the lives of others. this is a good example of Slippery slope.

PS: I realize my opinions here are heavily biased by being a Social-last Libertarian. imo, people are way too heavily involved in other people's lives and a great deal of the world's problems could be solved by people just minding their own business.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> (snip)
> 
> 
> Biological difference does not mean social or even psychological difference.(snip)


Let me see if I have the lesson down pat here...

If men complain about women, _then men are just being sexist_. :sad:
But if women complain that men "just don't get it" -- then that's OK, _because men are sexist_. :shocked:

Because there are no differences between the sexes... 

And if you think there are...
then _you're just being sexist_. :laughing:


Because it's sexist to say that men are better...
but it's sexist not to admit that women are better. :tongue:

OK, got it.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@ephemereality
this is a bit off topic, but
men and women have different balances of hormones which have known effects on personality and behavior. therefore, it's safe to assume there are innate psychological differences between men and women _on average_.

that said, I'm not using this in defense of gender roles, because all that would be doing is needlessly moralizing a trend. just because "men are _more likely_ to be X" does not mean that "men _should_ be X"
@g_w
I see your point, and it's a double standard that's very clear in Western culture imo, but, tbh, that was a total strawman.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

The discussions are interesting to me. I'm not too bothered whether they're had or not. Some days I'm interested in gender roles discussions. Other days I'd rather not.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

People should do whatever roles make them happy and comfterable.

If your a women if you wanna be a stay at home mom. Then be a stay at home mom. 

If you wanna work and not have any children? Do it.

It pisses me off that some feminist go around telling other women they are "oppressed" just because they fit into a gender role. 

Women and men should both be free to do what makes them happy and comfterable and not be forced to do things that fit the feminist or anti femnist agenda

I support women rights. I think they shoould have equal pay and all that good stuff. But I do not like the term feminist because its just another political group who uses people to fit its own political agenda.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_KINGoftheAMAZONS_
> I'm talking about situations in which there is no threat of violence, abuse, legal punishment. what do I have to say to make that clear?


How is someone to know that there will be no threat of violence, abuse, career, or legal punishments for their refusal to conform to somebody else's standards, unless they choose not to conform first? That's like saying that a person shouldn't take any risks unless they know the outcome will be devoid of negative consequences. But doesn't the very definition of a "risk" connote the possibility that an action may very well end with a negative outcome? Sure, I may choose to ignore the peer pressure of presenting myself as a feminine woman in public, but I won't know what kind of reaction I'll get until I first make the choice _not_ to conform. 



> that's not succumbing to peer pressure, it's being strategic and protecting yourself. peer pressure is when you do something primarily out of a desire for social acceptance or to impress your peers.


Again, doing something out of the desire for social acceptance or to impress your peers is also a strategic way for people to protect themselves against bullying, violence, social exile, discrimination, and harassment. 



> no, it isn't. what's reasonable is to assume that people forcing their preferences onto others is the cause of these behaviors, not the preferences themselves. if people just minded their own business, this wouldn't be an issue, regardless of how society thinks a man/woman should act.


Rubbish! If society believes that a "real" woman is feminine, or that a "real" man can't suffer sexual abuse, then naturally this ideological preference is going to spill over into the way that society decides to treat women who don't appear feminine, and men who are victims of sexual abuse. The "preference" itself is based on forcing people to comply with its ideology, under the threat of physically outcasting, bullying, discriminating, and eliminating all those who do not conform. 



> ideology does NOT always lead to physical implementation. this only happens when people stop minding their own business and try to control the lives of others.


What the hell do you think the social purpose of ideology is? It's defined as the ideas/ideals/principles that forms the foundations of a society's socio-political-economic structures :dry:. So when ideologies are implemented on a social (or systematic) scale, it's obviously going to involve people "not minding their own business". People can't mind their own business when they are taught to believe that every man should be "x", and every woman should be "y", etc. 



> PS: I realize my opinions here are heavily biased by being a Social-last Libertarian. imo, people are way too heavily involved in other people's lives and a great deal of the world's problems could be solved by people just minding their own business.


I don't think it's realistic to try to ignore the connection b/w the way people are socially conditioned to propagate certain ideologies, from the same incapability these people have to "mind their own business".


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

The thing that really infuriates me is when friends of mine say things like, "Gender is just a grey spectrum. There's really no such thing as male or female." It pisses me off because they're just factually wrong and they don't want to admit it. There is a VERY CLEAR distinction between X and Y chromosomes, between androgen and estrogen, and between the male and female anatomy AND BRAINS.

Yes, there are inter-sexual people and there are gender-queer people, but these make up an incredibly tiny percent of the population. Suggesting that 100% of all people should pretend they don't have genitalia just because 1% of people don't identify as one or the other is absolutely ridiculous. Be yourself? Myself is a fucking woman goddamnit and it's just how I was born.

The origin of this strong distaste for extreme liberalism? My parents were that precise type of liberal extremists, and they refused to believe that I could be a woman. My mother never taught me about female hygiene, makeup, emotions, sexuality, socialization, or anything gender-specific. I was brought up to be a smart, strong, independent person without gender barriers, and I was miserable. I never understood why I cried so much more than my brothers, or why the boys in school were so much stronger than me. I felt like a total freak and would secretly spend hours in my room dancing and singing to myself and playing dress-up. I lived vicariously through my doll's wardrobe, which my extended family had gotten me for Christmas. I was 20 years old by the time I started wearing dresses and makeup, and at 21 I am just now starting to accept myself as a woman. I've recently been less and less embarrassed by the sound of my very high-pitched voice and don't constantly catch myself and force it lower. When my boyfriend said he wanted to see me in hair bows I broke down and cried.

So liberal hypocrisy that goes against nature? Yeah, fuck that shit up the ass.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

meltedsorbet said:


> Why all this comparison between what is "adult" and what is not? This is the Sex and Relationship forum...where people are free to discuss their sexual fantasies. What is so immature about discussing gender roles and sexual identity? Are they not "adult" enough unless they are sexually explicit?
> 
> Last time I checked, the professor who taught Gender Studies at my old university was an adult. The amount of critical thinking required to dissect and discuss social nuances only develops with age. Also...I'm pretty sure she qualified as an "adult in the real world" by most conventional standards...considering she had a job, was influential to her community as an educator, and was physically, emotionally, and intellectually mature. She also expanded, just as many other feminists have, her isolated discipline to apply to other issues...such as the huge oil spill, which was a result of our dependence on petroleum.
> 
> ...



This kind of feminism is dogma. It's not an honest and unbiased quest for knowledge. They have their own central ideas about what is right. I don't care to hear it, and consider myself above it. I'm sorry. Politics is also for kids as well. Childish thing. I actually used to be huge into politics when I was younger. It couldn't help but appeal to the naive, lizard part of my brain. But I matured and saw it for what it really was. I used to think I was an intellectual because I kept up with current events and wanted to change the world, now I think I am an intellectual because I don't.

Though I admit, I am not being constructive and should just keep my mouth shut.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Amine said:


> So under your theory, victims of bullying who get picked on and made fun of should not stand up for themselves, because it isn't relevant? And it is OK if people throw slurs around, as long as they aren't taking away rights or coercing or invading privacy?


no, but someone believing in traditional gender roles ≠ bullying. bullying is a deliberate attempt to intimidate, control or damage one's self esteem. a single snide, disrespectful or ignorant comment ≠ equal bullying either.



> Don't think so. I don't think such things should be _illegal_, but it is now seen as extraordinarily bad taste because people stood up, criticized society, and raised awareness. Perhaps they seem kind of pesky to whoever they are asking to adjust, but I think what determines the appropriateness of a response is whether or not it is true. For instance, look at the bizarrely unrealistic standards for beauty set forth by these advertisements and magazines that use airbrushed models to pedal products. That IS oppressive, and should be addressed / spoken out about.


LOL that's capitalism, not oppression. they do it because it makes more money. by that definition, anime is also oppressive because it features males with unrealistically fine features who barely age (if at all) and are prettier than most women. 
if a woman (or man's) self esteem is damaged by seeing unrealistically beautiful people, she/he needs to work on herself/himself and learn unconditional love and self acceptance. 



> Overall I don't even think we disagree that much, I just think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The threads about it are numerous, but I think it is a relevant discussion at its best. No, I don't think threads should be derailed but I see your point that they are. And I also do think that some people become excessively liberal, and that is also definitely annoying, but I figure *"what are you gonna do." *That'll be the case with any issue. I'd argue with them individually rather than just trying to banish the entire topic.


you see, that's the thing. imo, what to do is actually VERY simple
1) limit discussion to relevant threads
2) bring up views in a mature manner as opposed to adolescent victim playing and projecting of intentions


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Kazoo said:


> People should do whatever roles make them happy and comfterable.
> If your a women if you wanna be a stay at home mom. Then be a stay at home mom.
> If you wanna work and not have any children? Do it.
> It pisses me off that some feminist go around telling other women they are "oppressed" just because they fit into a gender role.
> ...


bingo! there you have it. it really is that simple


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> How is someone to know that there will be no threat of violence, abuse, career, or legal punishments for their refusal to conform to somebody else's standards, unless they choose not to conform first? That's like saying that a person shouldn't take any risks unless they know the outcome will be devoid of negative consequences. But doesn't the very definition of a "risk" connote the possibility that an action may very well end with a negative outcome? Sure, I may choose to ignore the peer pressure of presenting myself as a feminine woman in public, but I won't know what kind of reaction I'll get until I first make the choice _not_ to conform.


first off, may I ask where you live? perhaps you are living in a part of the world in which gender oppression is a bigger problem than what I'm seeing around me (because frankly, I see next to none, much less violent oppression or coercion).
when one does not have hammer-with-a-nail syndrome (which I've noticed to be common in people on both extremes of the political spectrum), it's very easy to tell who will/will not be violent most of the time.



> Again, doing something out of the desire for social acceptance or to impress your peers is also a strategic way for people to protect themselves against bullying, violence, social exile, discrimination, and harassment.


you seem not to grasp the fact that _the majority of comments are not/will not lead to bullying, violence, discrimination, etc_. having a _sense of proportion_ about people's comments is really not all that difficult. 




> Rubbish! If society believes that a "real" woman is feminine, or that a "real" man can't suffer sexual abuse, then naturally this ideological preference is going to spill over into the way that society decides to treat women who don't appear feminine, and men who are victims of sexual abuse. The "preference" itself is based on forcing people to comply with its ideology, under the threat of physically outcasting, bullying, discriminating, and eliminating all those who do not conform.


once again, slippery slope. 
to give a common example: in the United States, it is strongly socially frowned upon for a man to wear a dress, but wearing a dress is still legal and probably will be for a long time, because people recognize each other's right to wear clothing which one may consider socially reprehensible.



> What the hell do you think the social purpose of ideology is? It's defined as the ideas/ideals/principles that forms the foundations of a society's socio-political-economic structures :dry:. So when ideologies are implemented on a social (or systematic) scale, it's obviously going to involve people "not minding their own business". *People can't mind their own business when they are taught to believe that every man should be "x", and every woman should be "y", etc.*


yes, they can. minding your own business is very easy. 



> I don't think it's realistic to try to ignore the connection b/w the way people are socially conditioned to propagate certain ideologies, from the same incapability these people have to "mind their own business".


I think breaking social conditioning is a lot easier than people think it is. I grew up in the midwestern United States and all my life I've been conditioned to
- like sports
- not pamper myself
- not talk a lot/be "strong and silent"
- not care about pain
- like country and rock
- dress in plane, casual clothing which is boring as hell
I neither rebelled nor conformed to such pressures, I simply ignored them and did my own thing. sure, a couple people gave me a hard time, but I put them in their place and people eventually learned to respect me.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But did you know that estrogen can also raise sexual desire? Anyway, I already addressed this in a previous post of mine. I am well aware that testosterone can increase sex drive.


And yet you said in the earlier post (as I bolded)
*"...there is no science at all to prove that biology plays any particularly large role at all when it comes down to it, aside the fact that males got a dick and females got a vagina.*"
I quote a study to refute the bolded, and you 
a)responded that you already knew
b) quote estrogen as well
c) fail to realize that in doing so, you contradicted your OWN bolded statement.





ephemereality said:


> Irrelevant to the point I was making. I already addressed this indirectly.


But relevant to the bolded excerpt, which is what I came out and said I was responding to.
I suggest we're talking past each other: as I was only concerned with the bolded statement -- I thought at first it was bombast, but
it's beginning to look like you don't want to admit you engaged in rhetorical overstatement.



ephemereality said:


> Applies to _heterosexual_ women.


Why so it does; and they are (by definition) *women*.





ephemereality said:


> How long does it take to actually read through someone else's posts before one links to random google articles in order to "validate" one's point of view?


I was only addressing the one line in bold: your assertion that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that biology plays a large part in sex roles. 
That statement has been effectively refuted. 
If you wish to modify the assertion: both nature and nurture play a large part in sex roles, but it's hard to come up with sensitive and efficacious tests to unambigously descry the influence of each element, without running afoul of regulations concerning studies on human subjects, I'll agree with you.





ephemereality said:


> Strawman. Yes, it's about hormones, but no, _not_ sex hormones which my original post was addressing. And I'm already aware of this also, in that human DNA can change during one's life in relation to the exposure of various stress factors e.g. stress, which of course means this can later be carried over to one's offspring.


Nope, not a strawman at all. Read the NYT article again. The effects of PRE-PREGNANCY stress, manifest differently in male and female offspring. That's a sex-related difference (biology!) and "nature, not nurture" given that the stressor happened BEFORE conception: there can therefore literally, explicitly, be NO social component on the offspring at all, and any effect MUST have been due solely to biology.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@delphi367


> You should move to Texas, where I live. A lot of people around here have exactly this mentality, especially in more rural areas. I really think that it would be better if people could live among others who share their mentality, rather than being trapped among people who try to force certain values on them.


one again, I'm not opposed to people sharing their mentality; I'm opposed to them being overly obnoxious about it in inappropriate contexts. oh, and I rather like Texas btw =)



> You are a hard man. :/


eh, I'm sweet and cuddly when you get to know me, but I'm certainly not going to place my emotional well being in the hands of strangers (ie, most of society).



> I never said that you don't have a right to a negative opinion. There is an aspect of human society you don't seem to be grasping. People are influenced by the opinions of others to form their own standards. So, if the majority of people have standards of acceptance that include gender roles... *then that puts anyone who doesn't fit them in a pretty tough position, doesn't it?* It's not just all of those people making an individual decision. The people who form those opinions were influenced by the opinions of those they respected.


honestly, I still don't think so. personally, I assume that most people not accepting me is the default. as long as I have a few friends who accept me, that's fine with me (in fact, it's preferable. it makes the few friendships I have more special). you don't need the majority to accept you as long as you have friends. people tell me this worldview is rather "dark", but honestly, it just doesn't feel that way to me. 



> There are many ultra-conservative, abusive men who use exactly the same kind of language you do, calling every complaint about their behavior "drama" or "whining" or "being a victim." Because in their mind, they have a right to get what they want, no matter who it hurts. I don't think you're like that, but you are appearing to align yourself more with them than with those who oppose them. If you don't understand why people might have an issue with that, then I don't know what to tell you.


well, I can be like that if you piss me off. don't mess with the Boogieman 
in all seriousness though, I am more than acquainted with many forms of bullying and, when I see it in the real world, I am one of the first to speak up, but the majority of what people get bent out of shape about are comments which are little more harmful than a 5 year old saying "he called me a poopyhead! :crying: ".


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> one again, I'm not opposed to people sharing their mentality; I'm opposed to them being overly obnoxious about it in inappropriate contexts. oh, and I rather like Texas btw =)


Yeah, I'd prefer to live some place more like California or New York, if I had the money. LOL.




> eh, I'm sweet and cuddly when you get to know me, but I'm certainly not going to place my emotional well being in the hands of strangers (ie, most of society).


Emotional well-being? No, no... I'm just saying you have to treat people with a baseline level of respect. As in, I don't think you should tease a tomboyish girl who has short hair, or that sensitive, weak-looking boy with glasses. Don't tell them that there's something wrong with them because they don't meet your standards, or encourage others to make fun of them. Don't "make an example" of them to ensure everyone else stays "in line" with their gender roles. 

I'm not asking you to reach out to anyone or care about them, I'm just saying you shouldn't deliberately act to make their lives tougher.



> honestly, I still don't think so. personally, I assume that most people not accepting me is the default. as long as I have a few friends who accept me, that's fine with me (in fact, it's preferable. it makes the few friendships I have more special). you don't need the majority to accept you as long as you have friends. people tell me this worldview is rather "dark", but honestly, it just doesn't feel that way to me.


But you would expect them to tolerate you and not obstruct you in life, right? All I'm asking is that people not obstruct or attack people for not meeting certain standards.


> well, I can be like that if you piss me off. don't mess with the Boogieman
> in all seriousness though, I am more than acquainted with many forms of bullying and, when I see it in the real world, I am one of the first to speak up, but the majority of what people get bent out of shape about are comments which are little more harmful than a 5 year old saying "he called me a poopyhead! :crying: ".


So, presumably you're not talking about a group of people calling an effeminate man a "******" and standing together mocking him to "punish" him? I don't know exactly what you're talking about here.

The way you're coming across is like telling people that no matter how badly they get treated, they should just suck it up because life isn't fair. You seem to be saying no one has a right to feel wronged or offended by any behavior/treatment at all.

I guess I just don't especially like living that way, where anything goes and the strongest people get their way. I think we should be able to say that certain ways of treating people are wrong.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

did this thread become exactly what the thread was complainimg about?


----------



## SouthernSaxon (Feb 21, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> There is no concrete science to prove this.


Oh please, do I really have to get into refuting this kind of denialism? Whatever. Men have high levels of testosterone which women don't, and this enables us to grow tall, and be physically stronger. Most occupations in human history have involved manual labour of some sort, something than men were much better suited for than women. The comparitively very recent change in the last 40 years from a manufacturing economy to a service economy has to some extent taken away the need for a man's strength, but there are certain occupations (armed forces, engineering, building, etc) which men are naturally going to dominate. There are also certain kinds of things that women are better at than men, such as caretaking, nursing, homemaking and so on. 

The difference is...men are not complaining about gender disparities in certain areas. Whereas certain women spend their _entire fucking lives_ crying about it, and brainwashing young girls into thinking the same way as them. 

And I see that someone else has posted a study for you to look at about this already.

Still, I'll contribute...http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013...ns-are-wired-differently-alert-the-feminists/ 



ephemereality said:


> You make it seem as if the only way women can be happy is to be married. Also, you have no evidence to support that women were less stressed in the past because then people didn't even talk about women's issues. I may however wish to point you towards some of Freud's works with hysterical women just to give you an idea of how it was like to live as a woman during say, the Victorian era. Happy was certainly not the word he would use to describe them.


I would point you to the graffiti on the walls of Pompeii, the works of Chaucer or records of the lives of Venetian women in the Baroque. The Victorian Period was quite unusual in its degree of sexual prudishness. The difference between all these times and today is simply that it was considered unacceptable for women to take on the roles of men in society, and vice versa.



ephemereality said:


> Now, if we take this analogy further, expecting women to marry even if they don't want to or don't like the guy is essentially the same thing.


Ideally this would be so, but at the moment we are in danger of having our population replaced. The continued existence of my people is endangered by encourging women to go out into the workforce instead of having children at the same time there are waves of immigration of alien peoples. I don't believe for a moment that this is all a coincidence either, but that's another story.



ephemereality said:


> LOL. So here comes the real issue. Your issue isn't that you actually care about women and what is good for them, but you only care about getting what you think you are entitled to have. Marriage and relationships are a two-way street. It's not just about what you want, but it's about what _they_ want. A healthy relationship is about learning to compromise. Regardless, I'm quite sure there are girls out there who love getting married early and having plenty of kids because there's nothing inherent about feminism that says they shouldn't as long it's done out of free choice. Thus, I don't see the problem. It's not like you are unique harboring these conservative values.


I have never claimed to care about all women, as I don't have the same interests as people whose blood differs. I was the one who said that marriage was a two way street, and dislike how men are still expected to earn the majority of the money and commit (eventually) but have to settle for scarely fertile 30+ women who are happy to divorce us at a moment's notice. As i mentioned above, purely for pragmatic reasons, this cannot be tolerated any longer. The Muslims laugh at us and how we allow our women to push us around...http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=2543



ephemereality said:


> No. If that's true then you wouldn't sit here whining about it.


If it was true than I wouldn't be complaining. Women want to have their cake and eat it too. 

Until then...








ephemereality said:


> The point of feminism is to highlight both of these issues, not just one of them.


Many mainstream feminist views/statements echo communism to me.

Ask yourself; why do feminists (including comments in this thread) express a manicial obsession with revolutions and utopias where everyone is the same, often make comparisons with racial equality, and have a hatred for scientific/naturalistic explanations?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

g_w said:


> Can you say "epigenetics" ? It's not "nature vs. nurture" but "nature *and* nurture" as the two seem to exhibit odd synergistic effects...
> 
> What's even more scary, is that not only may the stress a woman undergoes while pregnant affect the stress reactions of her offspring, but even PRE-PREGNANCY stress may do so: and apparently male and female offspring are affected differently. Granted, this is a mouse model, but for MANY human medical studies, mice are used in proxy for human subjects.
> 
> ...


Very interesting! I knew that stress felt by the father (whether as an adult, or pre-pubescent) can affect the offspring but I didn't know that the same effect was found in females. I know that when males are placed under duress or stress, changes are seen in the genes responsible for the development of the HPA axis. I wonder if it works the same way in females? 

I will have to search the database for some studies regarding this, I'd be interested to read more. Thanks for the link. 

PS - And yes, 'nature vs. nurture' is misleading. I think certain traits or behaviours may be slightly more 'nature' or slightly more 'nurture' but the two are definitely intrinsically linked. I was having trouble with a paper last week about sex determination during development/gestation. The study I had to read was disturbingly simplistic and made no mention of homosexuality, asexuality, hermaphrodites, transexuals, bisexuals... and every other phenomena not heterosexual or 'male' or 'female'. It's so much more complicated than most people realize, and the closer we look the more complicated it seems to become.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Kazoo said:


> did this thread become exactly what the thread was complainimg about?


Yes. Seems like OP was bored and raging and looking for some Feminists to get into a flame war with. To be fair, they are easy targets. At least he didn't go down the path of questioning rape legitimacy, violence toward women, equal pay, athleticism, double standards, child support, or any of the numerous topics that would have led Snail to sit on his face whilst breathing fire.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@delphi367


> Emotional well-being?* No, no... I'm just saying you have to treat people with a baseline level of respect*. As in, I don't think you should tease a tomboyish girl who has short hair, or that sensitive, weak-looking boy with glasses.


*absolutely.* my point is there is a difference between saying "that was disrespectful, stop." and "you're bullying me!" see the difference? 



> The way you're coming across is like telling people that no matter how badly they get treated, they should just suck it up because life isn't fair. You seem to be saying no one has a right to feel wronged or offended by any behavior/treatment at all.


no, no no 
I'm saying 
1) voice your concerns in the moment (that is, be assertive and stand up for yourself) or self disclose at appropriate times and places (as I keep stressing, their _are_ appropriate times and places to discuss such topics. I have not suggested otherwise). remember I'm an NF too. I _love_ sitting in on and sharing stories about life hardships/overcoming personal struggles provided it's in the right setting. few other opportunities over such an experience for bonding.
2) realize the difference between a genuinely malicious comment and a comment that was, in fact, not malicious at all (ex: getting bent out of shape how racist someone is for saying something about black people and fried chicken). 



> I guess I just don't especially like living that way, where anything goes and the strongest people get their way. I think we should be able to say that certain ways of treating people are wrong.


the way I live is:
1) treat people with respect as a default (there is an egregious lack of respect among my generation in particular and it bothers me)
2) if someone disrespects you, check the shit out of them
3) if someone bullies innocent people or messes with your friends, check that shit HARD!
4) do what you want. you will naturally put off some and attract others, the latter can become your friends with whom you can self disclose, be vulnerable and share meaningful connection with


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> first off, may I ask where you live? perhaps you are living in a part of the world in which gender oppression is a bigger problem than what I'm seeing around me (because frankly, I see next to none, much less violent oppression or coercion).


Where I live is of no consequence. No one has to live in Afghanistan just to experience the negative consequences of socially coerced gender roles. There are plenty of non-gender conforming people who are mistreated, bullied, discriminated against, and abused in my neck of the woods. 



> it's very easy to tell who will/will not be violent most of the time.


No it's not easy to tell these things. I mean I never thought that my mom would try to stab me (as she's never been violent like that with me before), but she did... Hindsight biases don't change the reality that you can't determine who will, or will not be violent or discriminatory towards you until AFTER they've decided to mistreat you.



> you seem not to grasp the fact that _the majority of comments are not/will not lead to bullying, violence, discrimination, etc._


That's because this isn't a "fact". It's an assumption.



> once again, slippery slope.


You need to brush up on your understanding of a slippery slope fallacy.



> to give a common example: in the United States, it is strongly socially frowned upon for a man to wear a dress, but wearing a dress is still legal and probably will be for a long time, because people recognize each other's right to wear clothing which one may consider socially reprehensible.


Your example is fallacious. Yes, it's legal for a man to wear a dress, but guess what? It's also LEGAL in MOST STATES for a man to be fired for wearing a dress if his employer doesn't find his _perceived_ "gender identity" & "sexual orientation" appropriate. Just because society gives some rights to a minority group, doesn't mean that discrimination against that same group (including bullying, violence, harassment, social exclusion, etc) suddenly becomes non-existent. 



> yes, they can. minding your own business is very easy.


I never said it wasn't easy, only that people are taught to perpetuate the very ideologies that they were socially conditioned to believe in. And promoting traditional values does not involve people minding their own business.



> I think breaking social conditioning is a lot easier than people think it is.


But that's not the point of this discussion. 



> I grew up in the midwestern United States and all my life I've been conditioned to
> - like sports
> - not pamper myself
> - not talk a lot/be "strong and silent"
> ...


And that's great. I truly am happy that you were able to put people in their place with little to no repercussions. However, just because _you_ were fortunate enough to experience this, doesn't mean that this is the way things go, or have gone for other people who have also attempted to stand up for themselves. Many people are bullied and violated on a daily basis because they don't conform to their family or community's standards. And you have neither the authority nor the experience to invalidate the shit that these people have had to go through.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

people care about people that care about people caring and sso on


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

devoid said:


> Yes. Seems like OP was bored and raging and looking for some Feminists to get into a flame war with. To be fair, they are easy targets.


this is not about feminism. there is overlap (ie, dogmatic liberals prone to strawman, slippery slope and attribution bias...), but I'm addressing both genders here. I've seen this behavior present in many men as well



> At least he didn't go down the path of questioning rape legitimacy, violence toward women, equal pay, athleticism, double standards, child support, or any of the numerous topics that would have led Snail to sit on his face whilst breathing fire.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

devoid said:


> The thing that really infuriates me is when friends of mine say things like, "Gender is just a grey spectrum. There's really no such thing as male or female." It pisses me off because they're just factually wrong and they don't want to admit it. *There is a VERY CLEAR distinction between X and Y chromosomes, between androgen and estrogen, and between the male and female anatomy AND BRAINS.*
> 
> Yes, there are inter-sexual people and there are gender-queer people, but these make up an incredibly tiny percent of the population. Suggesting that 100% of all people should pretend they don't have genitalia just because 1% of people don't identify as one or the other is absolutely ridiculous. Be yourself? Myself is a fucking woman goddamnit and it's just how I was born.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to point out the part in bold - Not all females are XX and not all males are XY. It's a heck of a lot more complicated than that. There is also a ton of wiggle room there regarding hormones and environmental factors, so while two females might identify as heterosexual 'women' they could seem worlds apart in terms of anatomy and behaviour. It's incredibly difficult to study just how pronounced the inherent biological differences are (because despite distinct anatomical differences, males and females are both extremely adaptable and impressionable) mostly due to the fact that there is seemingly no ethical way to go about it. You'd have to make someone a life long test subject and that just isn't cool. 

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that you were not allowed to be a woman. Obviously women are usually different than men and your parents should have let you play with whatever you desired and let *you* decide which gender you chose to identify with. I think that is what most 'gender equality' folk want - just the open-mindedness to allow children to decide for themselves if they want to do feminine or masculine things, and to give them the tools to be whoever and whatever they want. 

I personally don't care if my future daughters want to play with dolls or firetrucks. Or both. I played with both. I don't think it's going to screw them up or go against their biology. You can make women be women and men be men if you really want, but for those folks that honestly believe biology is so concrete and inborn then what do they have to worry about? Surely if that is the case then their innate tendencies will just come out later anyway. 

And now I'm discussing just what I said I was sick of discussing! :laughing:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> *Where I live is of no consequence.* No one has to live in Afghanistan just to experience the negative consequences of socially coerced gender roles. There are plenty of non-gender conforming people who are mistreated, bullied, discriminated against, and abused in my neck of the woods.


it is of _major_ consequence because it is a _matter of degree_



> No it's not easy to tell these things. I mean I never thought that my mom would try to stab me (as she's never been violent like that with me before), but she did... Hindsight biases don't change the reality that you can't determine who will, or will not be violent or discriminatory towards you until AFTER they've decided to mistreat you.


I don't mean this disrespectfully, but don't you think that experience could have traumatized you a bit, skewed your judgement or caused you to overestimate the threat/danger of other situations? this quote, as well as your general attitude as evidenced in other posts in this thread, is reminiscent of a friend of mine who has PTSD. I'm not saying this to invalidate you, but it's something to consider and, in the event that you have it (which would be more than understandable given the circumstance of your mom trying to stab you), it could make you hypersensitive to danger and/or blow the minute threats out of proportion.



> That's because this isn't a "fact". It's an assumption.


and an assumption that is clearly true with any amount of observation if one lives in the middle class of the developed world (which is why I say that where you are from is of consequence)



> You need to brush up on your understanding of a slippery slope fallacy.


no, I don't. you are assuming that harmless remarks will lead to coercion, legal discrimination and abuse. that's textbook slippery slope fallacy




> Your example is fallacious. Yes, it's legal for a man to wear a dress, but guess what? It's also LEGAL in MOST STATES for a man to be fired for wearing a dress if his employer doesn't find his _perceived_ "gender identity" & "sexual orientation" appropriate.


that's called a dress code. it's dumb, but it's a big deal.



> Just because society gives some rights to a minority group, doesn't mean that discrimination against that same group (including bullying, violence, harassment, social exclusion, etc) suddenly becomes non-existent.


I never said it did (bullying and harassment are VERY serious topics which deserve PROMPT attention).



> And promoting traditional values does not involve people minding their own business.


you're right



> But that's not the point of this discussion.


it's not, but it's still relevant. 



> And that's great. I truly am happy that you were able to put people in their place with little to no repercussions. However, just because _you_ were fortunate enough to experience this, doesn't mean that this is the way things go, or have gone for other people who have also attempted to stand up for themselves.


_fortunate_? excuse me, but it was a _choice_. I overcame discrimination because I chose to be strong as opposed to sitting around feeling sorry for myself like I see so many other people doing. sure, I am fortunate in other ways (I am not so delusional to believe that I've never received or needed help. everyone does sometimes), but the tendency to label _hard work_ and _accomplishments_ as _fortunate_ is an incredibly condescending and disrespectful trend I am noticing becoming more prominent (among liberals particularly). 

it was probably not your intention to come across that way, but please keep that in mind. 



> Many people are bullied and violated on a daily basis because they don't conform to their family or community's standards. And you have neither the authority nor the experience to invalidate the shit that these people have had to go through.


no, I don't, and I don't pretend to.
what I _do_ have the authority to invalidate is
- when someone is playing victim rather than being proactive and assertive
- expecting other people to take care of their emotional needs (this is _not_ the same as being assertive or asking people not to call you a certain term)
- someone passive-aggressively trying to throw themselves a pity-party at times when such discussion is not on topic. 

I have experienced psychological abuse that tempted me to commit suicide, two of my closest friends have suffered even more severe psychological abuse, and I have convinced more than one person not to kill themselves, so trust me, so I am more sympathetic to real psychological trauma than my posts would lead you to believe; _however_
1) for the millionth time, it is a matter of time, place and the manner of which one goes about bringing up such topics, not necessarily that the topics themselves are completely irrelevant. 
2) getting butthurt over non-PC word use (which is a lot of what I see around here) cannot BEGIN to compare with real abuse and discrimination


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

monemi said:


> Meh, strangers judge me. It sucks. I move on. You're too sensitive.


I think it would be different if you are judged for something you suffer dysphoria over. It's very difficult to not be sensitive around something that causes you mentally distress in the first place, and have people call that out on you.

I could equally claim you just lack empathy and respect.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I think it would be different if you are judged for something you suffer dysphoria over. It's very difficult to not be sensitive around something that causes you mentally distress in the first place, and have people call that out on you.
> 
> I could equally claim you just lack empathy and respect.


You assume strangers don't call me out on things that I am insecure about.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

monemi said:


> Meh, strangers judge me. It sucks. I move on. You're too sensitive.


best post in this entire thread


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

@monemi, I think that different people can have very different reactions to different things. I don't have gender dysphoria like @ephemereality but I can relate to experiencing extreme self-consciousness about something. To give one example: I used to have a horrible stutter and it was devastating to have people make fun of it. Of course, I am well aware that in no way would be in any way be an adequate comparison to something like what he is referencing. I personally cannot even begin to fathom what it is like to be in that situation; so I cannot really understand what it is like for him. I can only imagine that it must be extremely rough.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

monemi said:


> You assume strangers don't call me out on things that I am insecure about.


No, I don't. I used myself as an example why I think your approach is wrong and you tell me I'm too sensitive even though it's classified as a mental illness so well duh, of course I'm sensitive about it. That's what dysphoria is. It's a little difficult to not be sensitive about it then, or I wouldn't suffer from dysphoria. 

The point is that it's needless to judge people if it causes them hurt or harm, and it takes little to no effort from one's own end to actually alter this but no, you are clearly too lazy.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, I don't. I used myself as an example why I think your approach is wrong and you tell me I'm too sensitive even though it's classified as a mental illness so well duh, of course I'm sensitive about it. That's what dysphoria is. It's a little difficult to not be sensitive about it then, or I wouldn't suffer from dysphoria.
> 
> The point is that it's needless to judge people if it causes them hurt or harm, and it takes little to no effort from one's own end to actually alter this but no, you are clearly too lazy.


Again, you're convinced that your diagnosis is going to rate higher than anyone else's sensitivities. Doesn't work like that.


----------

