Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Zython]

It's very relevant in a job market based on competition. If males are more biologically competitive, they will simply do better, because the system works with their strengths.

Describe to me, in detail regarding genetics and biological chemistry, what causes men to be "more competitive" than women. I want you to show me why the male sex (not the male gender) is biologically more inclined to competition.

[PizzaSHARK]

The steady increase of CEOs suggests that women are being encouraged to join the more competitive job market more often, and doesn't really speak to any innate ability.

Sure it does. There aren't programs or special scholarships for women that want to fast-track themselves to being CFO or CEO of a corporation. The difference between now and fifty years ago is that we're no longer treating women as if they're plainly inferior to men, so that barrier to entry has been removed.

There's still a lot of residual "tradition" of the men being in charge, but that's eroding away as more and more young women pursue their careers and goals without being artificially held back.

There's no indication that these "biological differences" you keep harping about have any significant influence in modern society.

[Cybran]

Sure it does. There aren't programs or special scholarships for women that want to fast-track themselves to being CFO or CEO of a corporation. The difference between now and fifty years ago is that we're no longer treating women as if they're plainly inferior to men, so that barrier to entry has been removed.

This is total bullshit. There are loads of programs that encourage and even unfairly promote women to management positions. The EU is planing a 40% quota for management by 2020. Germany voted on a 30% quota few weeks ago. Norway has a 40% quota and if a private company fails to meet it the state can liqudate it.

Saying that the increase isn't the result of promotion and ecouragement, but only due to "figthing the men pigs" is total hogwash.

[Deleted]

Hey Grannon can you sum up your position here, because as much as I'd love to have the patience to sift through all of Garian's posts, it's just too gross.

The truth hurts.

Describe to me, in detail regarding genetics and biological chemistry, what causes men to be "more competitive" than women. I want you to show me why the male sex (not the male gender) is biologically more inclined to competition.

Look up "the killer instinct". Men have this while women don't and it stems from our days as hunter gatherers.

[Kasierith]

Not all women experience cramps. More experience behavioral changes - as part of a mechanism to keep potential mates away during egg turnover.

That's actually irrefutably false. There are two forms of problems; PMS is going to be primarily associated with physical symptoms and depression, with other emotional changes being a result of those. This is about 3/4 of women to widely varying degrees. PMDD, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, is going to be when hormones are directly acting on emotions, and this is going to be about 8% of women who also have PMS. The difference in terms of numbers is staggering.

But it's probably easier to attribute any of the many difficulties associated with being a human to "oh,she's PMSing." Because god forbid it if any sort of emotional trouble was ever present outside of a woman's hormonal cycle. It's not like men have significant depression or anxiety in modern society, even if diagnosis is so down because of cultural views on what a man's mental status should be, something that current evidence shows. The apparent connection between a mentrual cycle and every single emotion that a person has is pretty much complete bunk.

[Grannon]

We're omnivores. However the size of our brain is pretty much attributed to consumption of calorie rich meat. Saying that gathering contributed more calories than hunting would suggest that hunting was disadvantageous, so I'd be very skeptical of that claim.

I'm skeptical of yours. It's not by any means 'pretty much attributed' to meat it's a theory. Fire, and learning to cook, was more important in our evolution than meat. But I don't think anyone said hunting was 'disadvantageous,' only that it did not contribute more to the resources available to early humans than gathering.

This is total bullshit. There are loads of programs that encourage and even unfairly promote women to management positions. The EU is planing a 40% quota for management by 2020. Germany voted on a 30% quota few weeks ago. Norway has a 40% quota and if a private company fails to meet it the state can liqudate it.

Saying that the increase isn't the result of promotion and ecouragement, but only due to "figthing the men pigs" is total hogwash.

I don't think anyone has used the phrase 'fighting male pigs' but you. These countries found these programs necessary to combat lingering sexism in their society. We're never going to be able to seperate nature from nurture until we do away with idiotic ideas that because men hunted for meat in the stone age they're naturally better at running companies.

- - - Updated - - -

Look up "the killer instinct". Men have this while women don't and it stems from our days as hunter gatherers.

Well the top results I got are on how the 'killer instinct' is at best overblown and at worst a myth. So why don't you go ahead and cite that yourself, and explain why it's relevant?

[Deleted]

Well the top results I got are on how the 'killer instinct' is at best overblown and at worst a myth. So why don't you go ahead and cite that yourself, and explain why it's relevant?

It's relevant because it makes men more competitive and is cited as one of the reasons why most CEOs are men and why the mega ultra rich are men.

You are still living in a man's world, so why don't you create your own world? You create an all female utopia and leave the rest of us alone and then you watch how many women stay behind because they want and need men.

[Grannon]

It's relevant because it makes men more competitive and is cited as one of the reasons why most CEOs are men and why the mega ultra rich are men.

No, that's your theory. There are many factors that could contribute to the number of male CEOs vs the number of female ones. I may as well say "there are more men in prison than women which proves they are morally depraved and should all be locked up."

Are you a male? Because if so you're doing a really poor job of proving your 'men are rational and better at science' argument.

You are still living in a man's world, so why don't you create your own world? You create an all female utopia and then you watch how many women stay behind because they want and need men.

I'm not interested in a one-gender world. I'm interested in the world we actually live in: one where most people - men and women -are trying to do away with the antiquated idea that women are too dumb for any 'important' careers. You're the one who can't cope with reality, not me. You're a dinosaur.

[Deleted]

No, that's your theory. There are many factors that could contribute to the number of male CEOs vs the number of female ones. I may as well say "there are more men in prison than women which proves they are morally depraved and should be locked up."

Most crime is created by poverty. When you give people few ways out of poverty they will naturally turn to crime.

But yes, men are also generally more violent than women. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

I have no doubt that there are many different reasons for why men are more successful than women at the highest echelons of society (including but not limited to greater intelligence and advanced logical thinking), but there's no doubt that men are more competitive by nature than women. Men had to kill to survive and protect people and that instinct has translated into modern life.

There was a time when people would be killed by predators in the dark. And yet here you say that male ingenuity and competitiveness -- the same instincts that have kept us alive as a species -- are irrelevant.

I'm not interested in a one-gender world. I'm interested in the world we actually live in: one where most people are trying to do away with the antiquated idea that women are too dumb for any 'important' careers. You're the one who can't cope with reality, not me. You're a dinosaur.

No I'm just realistic.

So basically, you want to live in a world created by men but don't want to work as hard as men. You can't parasite off of other people's success and expect society to live for very long.

Like I said before, if you want to become a nuclear physicist or a computer scientist no one is stopping you. Those skills are in high demand regardless of gender. No matter how much you change our culture or how we educate people you still have to push yourself to learn on your own.

Now maybe you are not interested in those fields or maybe, just maybe, you're not smart enough to learn those subjects. Not everyone has the potential to learn everything, and there's no shame in admitting it. I could learn French for example, but I have no desire to do so, but I highly doubt that I could learn Japanese. That's not society's fault.

If you live in the western world then you live in heaven compared to the rest of the world, so stop complaining and adapt.

[Grannon]

Most crime is created by poverty. When you give people few ways out of poverty they will naturally turn to crime.

But yes, men are also generally more violent than women. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

Awww, it keeps coming back to the myth of the poor, oppressed male, doesn't it? "Most crime is caused by poverty" is the explanation for why minorities commit more crime, not men. Minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty. Men are not.

I have no doubt that there are many different reasons for why men are more successful than women at the highest echelons of society (including but not limited to greater intelligence and advanced logical thinking), but there's no doubt that men are more competitive by nature than women. Men had to kill to survive and protect people and that instinct has translated into modern life.

There was a time when people would be killed by predators in the dark. And yet here you say that male ingenuity and competitiveness -- the same instincts that have kept us alive as a species -- are irrelevant.

I'm saying that you are overstating those attributes, yes, and that your 'theories' are based far too much on assumptions.

No I'm just realistic.

So basically, you want to live in a world created by men but don't want to work as hard as men. You can't parasite off of other people's success and expect society to live for very long.

Lucky thing nobody is suggesting that, then!

Like I said before, if you want to become a nuclear physicist or a computer scientist no one is stopping you. Those skills are in high demand regardless of gender. No matter how much you change our culture or how we educate people you still have to push yourself to learn on your own.

Now maybe you are not interested in those fields or maybe, just maybe, you're not smart enough to learn those subjects. Not everyone has the potential to learn everything, and there's no shame in admitting it. I could learn French for example, but I have no desire to do so, but I highly doubt that I could learn Japanese. That's not society's fault.

Sweetheart, I'm not in any way discontented with my life. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that I have or don't have. I'm highly educated and in a fascinating and important field. But if you're telling me that 'nobody is stopping' talented women from entering STEM fields and in the same breath parroting bullshit arguments about how women are too dumb for them, then you have even less self-awareness than I thought.

If you live in the western world then you live in heaven compared to the rest of the world, so stop complaining and adapt.

It actually seems like you're the one who's complaining. You're the one who wants to go back to the 1900s. The fact is that the world has changed and it's going to keep changing, with or without you.

[DisposableHero]

I don't think anyone has used the phrase 'fighting male pigs' but you. These countries found these programs necessary to combat lingering sexism in their society. We're never going to be able to seperate nature from nurture until we do away with idiotic ideas that because men hunted for meat in the stone age they're naturally better at running companies.

Here is the problem. They have concluded that lingering sexism is the problem without evidence that it is in fact the reason for the differences they observe. Men and women have different inclinations and as a large group gravitate towards different lifestyles, professions, etc. The problem in a lot of cases is that no one has taken the time to evaluate if we observe more men in certain career paths because there is a barrier for women to pursue that career path or because a larger percentage of women are simply not inclined to pursue it.

[Deleted]

Are we now arguing that because women didn't hunt, they can't run a company? wat?

Women evolved to raise children. Feminism is fighting nature.

Awww, it keeps coming back to the myth of the poor, oppressed male, doesn't it? "Most crime is caused by poverty" is the explanation for why minorities commit more crime, not men.

I love how you twisted my words. You'd make Communist revolutionaries proud. I said that poverty creates crime, which it does.

Men just happen to be the biggest victims of poverty in this society (most homeless people are men for example) because we live in a mostly service sector economy thanks to greedy people shipping most of our manufacturing to China and outsourcing jobs to India etc.

Poverty creates crime. The fact that minorities are more effected by it just proves that they are less able to adapt. I suppose this is the part where you claim that I have white male privilege, right?

I'm saying that you are overstating those attributes, yes, and that your 'theories' are based far too much on assumptions.

Sorry but raising children in a cave hardly compares to men creating miniature black holes at CERN.

Sweetheart, I'm not in any way discontented with my life. I'm not blaming anyone for anything that I have or don't have. I'm highly educated and in a fascinating and important field. But if you're telling me that 'nobody is stopping' talented women from entering STEM fields and in the same breath parroting bullshit arguments about how women are too dumb for them, then you have even less self-awareness than I thought.

No one is stopping them. If anyone is literally stopping women from succeeding then I will be the first to try to end that injustice.

But now that you mention it, yes, men are naturally better at science, math and highly specialized jobs. Etc etc etc.

You just refuse to accept it.

It actually seems like you're the one who's complaining. You're the one who wants to go back to the 1900s. The fact is that the world has changed and it's going to keep changing, with or without you.

And guess who will change the world? That's right: mostly men.

The next time you upgrade your computer remember that men designed the parts. Remember that men with guns are protecting you from harm.

Don't lecture us on privilege while we literally built and protect the world you live in.



[Infracted]

[Deleted]

Women evolved to raise children. Feminism is fighting nature.

Not at all. Men can raise children aswell, they, however, can't get pregnant and give birth.

[DisposableHero]

Not at all. Men can raise children aswell, they, however, can't get pregnant and give birth.

And the natural male role in child rearing has always been provision and protection. I.e. go out, work, make money, put a roof over their heads and food on their table.

[Velaniz]

Don't lecture us on privilege while we literally built and protect the world you live in.

I'm curious as to who you think 'we' is, or how it has any relevance here. Were you any of those men who built this world?

[DisposableHero]

Your'e confusing "natural" with "traditional", and then you're assuming either of them matters at all. (Which they don't.)

Traditional is the better term for it, and I think you are correct that it doesn't matter at all, but it ties in with my previous point. Anyone can fight and break from tradition, but most won't. How do we conclude that different representation in certain fields is a result of sexist barriers rather than simply adherence to tradition?

[Vexxilus]

Verify with a server administrator? You were going to contact a server administrator rather than go to the library to look for yourself? Sure you were. Well the server administrator would be able to confirm the formatting of the URL for you. As a matter of fact, go ahead and contact them,and if they're willing to play along with your little game, send me their contact info and I'll verify with them independently.

Go on. I dare you.

All I asked for were simple links and you will do anything but provide them.

You 'heavily scrutinize' peer reviewed research when you don't even know how to find out if an article was peer reviewed? Unbelievable arrogance. Armchair academics, I'll tell you. Can you find any sources other than the one you keep going on about that confirm your bias?

I heavily scrutinize things coming from "social science" sources since they tend to misrepresent what the numbers mean and folks such as yourself are happy with their explanation instead of looking deeper.

Or is it just the one that claims that the gap gets smaller if you ignore that women are given fewer opportunities for higher paying jobs? Could you explain to me why women who are passed over for promotion because of their gender and are being paid less as a result don't 'count' when it comes to the wage gap? Or are you just going to go on another paranoid rant about the vast feminist conspiracy?

And how do you propose to prove that the reason they are passed over was due to their gender? That is already illegal and can be resolved via the legal system. You are just pointing out that women (as a whole) make less than men (as a whole), want to ignore that a man and woman working side by side doing the same thing get paid the same amount, and say that it is society oppressing them. How is it that an independent thinking adult women seems incapable of making a decision of her own, according to what you are saying that is?

[Deleted]

What the hell does "fighting nature" even mean or matter anyway? As if humans don't spend the majority of our effort on just that, changing the world around us and how we interact with it. [/FONT]

If there are two people and you can only educate one of them for a particular job then you educate the one with the most potential to succeed otherwise we all suffer.

What radical feminism tried to do is reprogram an entire gender to become something they are not in the name of an impossible dream called equality.

You could try to train a child to become a surgeon but in the end you will want an adult who can actually do the job skillfully.

It's ironic actually because feminists want women to become better men. You want to compete in a man's world which is great but it has displaced men in the process because there aren't infinite jobs, which is wrong.

Fight nature to turn women into something they are not and kill men? Let's vote on it.

I'm curious as to who you think 'we' is, or how it has any relevance here. Were you any of those men who built this world?

You're attempting to shut down the argument by assassinating my character. Why do you people always resort to this? I'm not allowed to have an opinion unless I am the president of the world or something? Even then you'd try to find weak spots in my arguments and try to attack my character if I didn't bow down to your Borg collective point of view. So I will just say whatever the hell I want anyway regardless of the consequences.

I am a man. I'm a member of the same gender that created civilisation that feminists hate so much while they eat warm food cooked in an oven or microwave while living in a warm home built by men.

The irony never ceases to amaze me. Men have lost their self-respect.

[Stir]

And the natural male role in child rearing has always been provision and protection. I.e. go out, work, make money, put a roof over their heads and food on their table.

Simply untrue.
While provision was certainly a large role for males in our history, it was also a large role for females. And from paleolithic graves found, we can also assert that, even though hunting was primarily done by males, some females also joined in the hunt... Which leads to suspect me that roles were picked not based on genitals, but on talent. A talented hunter would be a waste as a gatherer and vise versa, so a man who would have been a very talented gatherer would have gathered, and a woman who was good at hunting would have hunted.

As for protection: Yes, indeed, that was primarily a male thing. Just like giving birth was pretty much a female thing. The two are linked, and provide an equal survival value to the group. In a way, they are the same thing. After all; mammalian pregnancy is a method of protecting the infant before it is born.

The 'go out to work, make money etcetera' thing is mostly a product of the industrial revolution. Prior to that, the lower classes would have... Well; equally nothing regardless of gender. Both men and women worked the land, both men and women suffered pretty much equally. Only in the higher castes did a clear gender distinction exist, because the poor (who were the vast majority) simply didn't have that luxury.

The industrial revolution changed everything, because someone needed to stay at home to watch the kids, and the woman was expected to be a child-cannon in order to produce more workers so that the family would have more income. An economic change that affected society, but by no means the natural default.

[Vexxilus]

You've been proven wrong repeatedly over the past few pages

Really? I was given links to the abstract of an article that allegedly shows, not proves, a different conclusion to research done in the same area. The one link that actually was good reinforced that men and women working the exact same job make very close to the same amount and theories were given as to why that small difference was there. The other links of course were hidden behind a paywall.

Stating that an abstract is proof of anything is akin to stating that reading the plot summary for a movie is equivalent to watching that movie.

When you're fucking discarding peer-reviewed studies from universities as being "lies" or "not good enough," you have a serious fucking case of not existing in the same reality as everyone else.

I'm choosing to ignore abstracts without the research portion that backs them up. Also, the studies don't prove anything, just offer a different theory to why a "wage gap" exists. There has been plenty written stating many different reasons for a "wage gap." I tend to agree with the ones that lay out a logical approach to analysing the data available instead of lumping all men into one pile and women into another and pointing at how the number are different.