Why do women do it to each other?
Options
Replies
-
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that womeny are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.
I don't know how to explain this to you. No, we are not. These behaviors transcend nationality and culture for a reason. That reason is that they are genetically imprinted upon us and cannot wholly be escaped. Do they need to be as extreme as they are in america? Probably not but they will ALWAYS be there. We are different on a ll levels neurologically, cellular, histological, physiological and anatomical. There is literally no way around it.
That's the point - we are all different. Expecting an individual to have certain characteristics because of their gender is inherently unfair, because we are all different. There are plenty of women who have no interest in being nurturing or having babies. There are plenty of men who have no interest in being strong or talking about T&A or whatever.
We need to look at people on an individual basis and stop making assumptions about what they're like based on their gender and skin color.
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.
It might be the truth that women, as a group, have certain characteristics. Yes. That's absolutely true.
That's a different thing than saying women were "meant" or "made" to have a certain characteristic.
The former is an observation about a large group of people. The latter, however, forms an expectation of an individual. That is where the sexism is.0 -
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.
Just because my genetics gifted me with breasts that can lactate doesn't mean I'm not capable of traditionally male occupations. The history of computer science is founded by women and one rather famous gay male mathematician, who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?0 -
Weather or not people were made is a difference in belief systems that goes beyond the scope of this argument. You are splitting hairs. Men and women are "better" or "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors than one another. Does that satisfy your ego? or would you like to play more word games?
But men and women aren't "more fit" to carry out certain behaviors. Individual people are more fit to carry out certain behaviors. Liz Carmouche is far more fit to kick the crap out of someone than I am.
These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that womeny are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
These expectations, which fall in all kinds of directions, are placed on people simply because of their gender. They cause real, genuine problems for individuals who don't conform to those expectations. It's really a big problem, and it's not a subtle distinction.
I don't know how to explain this to you. No, we are not. These behaviors transcend nationality and culture for a reason. That reason is that they are genetically imprinted upon us and cannot wholly be escaped. Do they need to be as extreme as they are in america? Probably not but they will ALWAYS be there. We are different on a ll levels neurologically, cellular, histological, physiological and anatomical. There is literally no way around it.
I think it's pretty much been settled, hasn't it, that most human behaviours are the product of a confluence of genetic inheritance, learning, culture, etc etc? As with disease - there may be an inclination for x to develop, but it may or may not be triggered, depending on a to probably z.
Plus variation etc.
The presence of (certain kinds of) differences doesn't point to their inevitability. No one can explain the look of any adult brain just by referencing evolutionary argument. What is shown in any imaging is a particular brain at a given point in time, and as it has matured and interacted with any number of elements, including culture.0 -
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.
Just because my genetics gifted me with breasts that can lactate doesn't mean I'm not capable of traditionally male occupations. The history of computer science is founded by women and one rather famous gay male mathematician, who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?
Exactly. You weren't "meant" or "made" to be [whatever] because you're a woman. You're a human being and an individual and you have the freedom and ability to decide for yourself what kind of person you want to be.
How insulting is it for someone to say you were "made" to do or be something you don't want to do or be? Loftearmen, don't you see how condescending and insulting it is to tell someone they were "meant" or "made" to do something they have zero interest in, just because they have boobs?0 -
We need to look at people on an individual basis and stop making assumptions about what they're like based on their gender and skin color.
Unlikely (bc inefficient), but yeah agree.0 -
No, the "reason" is that some people cannot distinguish between "men can typically run faster than women" which is a factual statement, and "women are not supposed to run" which is idiotic and sexist. It is not sexist to recognize the fact that men and women are different. It is sexist to use perceived or proven differences as a reason to say men and women should have different opportunities based solely on their gender.These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that women are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.0 -
No, the "reason" is that some people cannot distinguish between "men can typically run faster than women" which is a factual statement, and "women are not supposed to run" which is idiotic and sexist. It is not sexist to recognize the fact that men and women are different. It is sexist to use perceived or proven differences as a reason to say men and women should have different opportunities based solely on their gender.These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that women are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
Let me remind you that the statement Loftearmen said wasn't sexist is:
"women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers"
He didn't say "men can typically run faster than women." That is not sexist. Saying that women are "meant to be the teachers" and were "made to be the nurturers" is not a factual statement. It is a sexist statement.
Nice snakes, by the way. Are those all corn snakes?0 -
Oh wow yhats terrible what a *****! She needs slapped0
-
No, the "reason" is that some people cannot distinguish between "men can typically run faster than women" which is a factual statement, and "women are not supposed to run" which is idiotic and sexist. It is not sexist to recognize the fact that men and women are different. It is sexist to use perceived or proven differences as a reason to say men and women should have different opportunities based solely on their gender.These aren't word games. These are serious issues in society. Attitudes like this - that women are "meant" or "more fit" to do womanly things - are the reason that people give Danica Patrick such ****. It's the reason that women are held to higher standards in business environments and health care. It's the reason people feel comfortable openly wondering why some actress isn't having a baby. Thinking that men are "meant" or "more fit" to be strong or macho is the reason so many gay teens kill themselves.
Let me remind you that the statement Loftearmen said wasn't sexist is:
"women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers"
He didn't say "men can typically run faster than women." That is not sexist. Saying that women are "meant to be the teachers" and were "made to be the nurturers" is not a factual statement. It is a sexist statement.
It's sloppily applied evolutionary logic. (Which is sexist.)0 -
that sucks0
-
The 'mandate' of a specimen is not specifically to reproduce but to ensure maximum replication/success of other copies of its genes. That doesn't just include direct offspring, it also includes anyone else who is carrying copies of your genes. Alan Turing had 4 nephews and nieces, who carried as many copies of his genes as two of his own offspring would have. His work protected their future, so he did fulfill his 'mandate' without reproducing. :Pwho clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?0 -
Yep, the ones in my profile are all corns. (I have a few other colubrids.)Nice snakes, by the way. Are those all corn snakes?
The logic is not sloppy. Optimal male and female reproductive strategies are clearly different and for fairly obvious reasons, such as the fact that men have nine months to leave and get other women pregnant in the meantime. Men can make a larger number of offspring, risking a higher mortality/failure rate individually and still have an overall higher success rate. Men can also use "nest parasitism" type of strategies that aren't nearly so easy for females. The differences could cover chapters in a book, but you get the idea.It's sloppily applied evolutionary logic. (Which is sexist.)
His wording might be lacking, but that is depending on expectations of how the audience might receive it. Perhaps he is used to a different audience who does not infer value judgments from facts.0 -
A lot of times things said by males regarding women are labeled as being "sexist" even if they are true. For example, if I said "women were made to be the nurturers in a parenting situation and men are meant to be the teachers" some women would perceive that as sexist because
Let me stop you right there. It would be perceived as sexist because it is sexist. Women't weren't "made" to be anything.
Sexism is defined as the attribution of certain characteristics, expectations, or assumptions to an individual based on their gender. The problem with your statement is that it pushes the assumption that a woman is nurturing because she is a woman. The other side of that coin is that a woman who is not nurturing is not a proper woman.
This is the problem with sexism. It assigns characteristics and expectations to people based on their gender and nothing else. It's inherently unfair. Yes, in general, women might be more nurturing, but that doesn't apply to individual women and doesn't mean that women were "meant" or "made" to be that way.
I'm sorry but you just made my panties wet with your critical thinking skills--- please FR me
:flowerforyou:
People can't seem to understand that some of what they attribute to each sex is actually gender, which is a cultural construct. For example, "women are more nurturing"....you can do a study that shows women engage in more nurturing behavior, but the problem is people claiming its inherent to women, and not a function of social programming. Some things can be said of men and women that are not sexist, but are also not true in all scenarios: eg, men have more upper body strength than women. This is quantifiable biological fact, to which there can be exceptions (I may be able to bench more than you, for example).0 -
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.
Just because my genetics gifted me with breasts that can lactate doesn't mean I'm not capable of traditionally male occupations. The history of computer science is founded by women and one rather famous gay male mathematician, who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?
Exactly. You weren't "meant" or "made" to be [whatever] because you're a woman. You're a human being and an individual and you have the freedom and ability to decide for yourself what kind of person you want to be.
How insulting is it for someone to say you were "made" to do or be something you don't want to do or be? Loftearmen, don't you see how condescending and insulting it is to tell someone they were "meant" or "made" to do something they have zero interest in, just because they have boobs?
It is insulting. And the history of science and mathematics is full of examples where women have been kept out not by ability but by good old fashioned sexism. Who invented the compiler? A woman -- Grace Hopper. Who related the story of how the men around her were sceptical of it because they thought computers could only be used for calculating.
And what happened to Alan Turing? Treated with female hormones for the crime of having sex with other men. He later committed suicide, a man who should have been rightfully treated as a war hero.
Little things that you find in physics that speak to this discrimination against women -- check out Emily Noether, who had to teach classes under David Hilbert's name in Goettingen because women were barred from teaching at his university. ""What will our soldiers think when they return to the university and find that they are required to learn at the feet of a woman?" ....
Her discovery of conservation laws being associated with the underlying symmetries of a physical system is a cornerstone of physics.
Or say Henrietta Swan Leavitt, whose discovery of the relation between the luminosity and period of Cepheid variable stars enabled Edwin Hubble to discover the expansion of the universe. But she was unable to actually make this discovery because women were not allowed to operate telescopes!0 -
see, that's why i choose thin friends.0
-
Lol. It may not be fair but it's the truth. Just because people don't like something doesn't make it not so.
Just because my genetics gifted me with breasts that can lactate doesn't mean I'm not capable of traditionally male occupations. The history of computer science is founded by women and one rather famous gay male mathematician, who clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?
Exactly. You weren't "meant" or "made" to be [whatever] because you're a woman. You're a human being and an individual and you have the freedom and ability to decide for yourself what kind of person you want to be.
How insulting is it for someone to say you were "made" to do or be something you don't want to do or be? Loftearmen, don't you see how condescending and insulting it is to tell someone they were "meant" or "made" to do something they have zero interest in, just because they have boobs?
It is insulting. And the history of science and mathematics is full of examples where women have been kept out not by ability but by good old fashioned sexism. Who invented the compiler? A woman -- Grace Hopper. Who related the story of how the men around her were sceptical of it because they thought computers could only be used for calculating.
And what happened to Alan Turing? Treated with female hormones for the crime of having sex with other men. He later committed suicide, a man who should have been rightfully treated as a war hero.
Little things that you find in physics that speak to this discrimination against women -- check out Emily Noether, who had to teach classes under David Hilbert's name in Goettingen because women were barred from teaching at his university. ""What will our soldiers think when they return to the university and find that they are required to learn at the feet of a woman?" ....
Her discovery of conservation laws being associated with the underlying symmetries of a physical system is a cornerstone of physics.
Or say Henrietta Swan Leavitt, whose discovery of the relation between the luminosity and period of Cepheid variable stars enabled Edwin Hubble to discover the expansion of the universe. But she was unable to actually make this discovery because women were not allowed to operate telescopes!
You are talking about ancient history. That type of crap isn't acceptable today. Maybe it is among some older people who still happen to have some power somewhere. Or maybe I just don't notice it because my wife goes out and kicks the world's butt every day while I stay home and raise the kids and cook the meals and clean the house and change the diapers.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Your value-laden interpretation of them is where they become mutually exclusive.You weren't "meant" or "made" to be [whatever] because you're a woman. You're a human being and an individual and you have the freedom and ability to decide for yourself what kind of person you want to be.0 -
I'm really glad to see this thread taking a more positive turn as far as the sexist BS goes and folks stepping up.
Corvus' point is really close to what I was trying to make last night, which is that there are a lot of behaviors that are seen as 'inherently female' which are actually just a function of acculturation and a matter of people being told what their gender is supposed to be, and thus stepping into that role because that's what their told. Men and women fall into these traps every day, even sometimes the most strident of feminists.
But the moral of the story is that anyone who thinks that the fight for gender equality is over should be punched in the nose.
0 -
The 'mandate' of a specimen is not specifically to reproduce but to ensure maximum replication/success of other copies of its genes. That doesn't just include direct offspring, it also includes anyone else who is carrying copies of your genes. Alan Turing had 4 nephews and nieces, who carried as many copies of his genes as two of his own offspring would have. His work protected their future, so he did fulfill his 'mandate' without reproducing. :Pwho clearly defied his biological mandate to reproduce.
What happened?
While this is true, how he died also deprived them of what could have been a better future.0 -
lol, the ancient, halcyon days of like 50 friggin years ago.You are talking about ancient history. That type of crap isn't acceptable today. Maybe it is among some older people who still happen to have some power somewhere. Or maybe I just don't notice it because my wife goes out and kicks the world's butt every day while I stay home and raise the kids and cook the meals and clean the house and change the diapers.
Protip - if you can ask a living person about it, it probably isn't ancient history.0 -
You are talking about ancient history. That type of crap isn't acceptable today. Maybe it is among some older people who still happen to have some power somewhere. Or maybe I just don't notice it because my wife goes out and kicks the world's butt every day while I stay home and raise the kids and cook the meals and clean the house and change the diapers.
That was the 20th century.
In the 21st, we still have folks like Lawrence Summers.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions