[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, you conflate one's body with one's role. How does giving birth mean one must take on the role of sole caretaker?

I'm having trouble understand your argument. Say if I were born a midget, and wanted to play pro NBA ball. Are you saying that I should not be conflated with my midget "role" and be given the chance to play in the NBA despite my obvious disadvantage? They're going to pay me to play despite me not belonging. Or would you tell the midget to work around it and play something else instead?

Also I don't think you're understanding the other side of the coin. If we gave women special adjustments b/c of the womb, how's it fair to the man who sacrificed to be where he is? The only fair/efficient solution would be to look from the vantage point of both not having children to get ahead of where they are. I mean unless you become a heavily government subsidized economy.

Hell I was born poor, why should I work around anything, why shouldn't someone give me money? Why are people conflating my social status with my role?

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also I don't think you're understanding the other side of the coin. If we gave women special adjustments b/c of the womb, how's it fair to the man who sacrificed to be where he is? The only fair/efficient solution would be to look from the vantage point of both not having children to get ahead of where they are. I mean unless you become a heavily government subsidized economy.

What are you talking about? There are no special adjustments. I thought it was pretty simple. Explain to me how the ability to give birth = sole caretaker for all children after they are born.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm having trouble understand your argument. Say if I were born a midget, and wanted to play pro NBA ball. Are you saying that I should not be conflated with my midget "role" and be given the chance to play in the NBA despite my obvious disadvantage? They're going to pay me to play despite me not belonging. Or would you tell the midget to work around it and play something else instead?

If you are a midget who can score, force turnovers and take rebounds, etc. at a comparative level then why shouldn't they let you play?

It's not what you're born with that should matter; it's what you can do.

Seems like the two are being confused. Being born with a physical trait or condition does not limit you to being a slave of that trait or condition and should not condemn you to living out the role that trait or condition implies.

And I must say to Clueless - a woman can exist without a womb. Ever hear of a hysterectomy? Upon shedding her womb, is a female allowed to shed society's expectations of her role as well?

[Zsych]

	Originally Posted by LadySpock To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes...and it's sad. A nuclear family can be good for everyone - if it's a mutual partnership in which each of the parties are each getting their needs met. ....but a marriage set up where women are to obey men / men "rule" the household , etc. with rigid gender roles, etc benefits no one...not even the person who appears to be "in charge."

I wonder what makes you sure of this.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What are you talking about? There are no special adjustments. I thought it was pretty simple. Explain to me how the ability to give birth = sole caretaker for all children after they are born.

I'm talking about that everyone makes choices in life that affects their career. Take me for example, I'm an athlete and I need to train up to 2 hours a day. So...when I'm training, I can't be there for work so I take a pay cut for what I do; I'm looked over for promotions, don't hang with the guys and don't get paid for not being there. Should the other guys in the office make more than me? I would like them not to, but that's just how it works and I think it's worth the sacrifice. Similarly if you think a baby is worth the sacrifice then have one. If not, then don't.

Who said you were the sole caretaker?

[Zsych]

Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Distance is making the observation that saying "you value someone as a female" implies they are viewed first for their use as a womb. That baby-making is a woman's firs objective. That other stuff? Career, volunteering, writing books, running for office, composing music? That's all just "extra bonus" stuff - stuff that people nut "burdened" by the womb as CG put it, are suppose to do. What does it mean to "value a person as a female" instead of just saying "valuing a person." To me, it seems you must first see them as a womb, and then as a person. Similar, it would be like saying that I value "men for their ability to produce sperm" and when a man finds that kind of insulting, I were to say in size 4 bolded text that they must hate their penis. That's sort of messed up.

I think its an 'also'. And yes, a definite part of a woman's value is her ability to have children, just as its men to be able to seed. I suspect that fewer men would be insulted by the idea of being primarily valued for their sperm - in part because a man providing sperm has achieved biological success and won a part of the game of life. Oddly it seems less so for a woman (although I don't think it was). I suppose its partly because advances in medical science have made it less necessary for women to be having children and so they have to create other types of value, to be valued.

I don't think that has really changed for men as much. In theory, its still the better men who should be breeding. But now, more women must also be getting rejected from the game.

And in having children, at the very least, people contribute to the direction of human evolution - that might actually be more meaningful than many other types of contribution one can have (since our achievements mean little if the human race itself is ruined tomorrow)

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think its an 'also'. And yes, a definite part of a woman's value is her ability to have children, just as its men to be able to seed. I suspect that fewer men would be insulted by the idea of being primarily valued for their sperm - in part because a man providing sperm has achieved biological success and won a part of the game of life. Oddly it seems less so for a woman (although I don't think it was).

Maybe because just saying the words doesn't mean a whole lot. If you treat a man as though his sperm were his only value - If his thoughts were ignored, his ideas disregarded, his work diminished to spilling seed and little else - I'm sure you'd get a different reaction, even to the mere words.

[Zsych]

*Puts away gigantic ego*

I suppose somewhere between having high self-esteem and just doing your duty and not worrying about meaningless things, there is a middle place where one might feel inadequate because of other people's low perception of oneself.

I still almost don't see the guy as coming to actual harm. All of this fear and caring about what people think, is still more a womanly quality.

I'm of the opinion that women are taught to fear a lot of things, and feel a lot of inadequacy. Those things are only as real as you choose to let them be. In general, people treat you how you expect them to treat you and how you show them they should treat you. People who believe they deserve respect, automatically get it.

[SelfMadeBum]

I'm with you on the "what people think" thing.

Where I draw the line is when others' thinking restricts my freedom or opportunities. As a mere seed spiller, how possible do you imagine it would be to rise to a leadership position?

[Zsych]

Its not a matter of other people restricting, its a matter of choosing to take. Often not even taking... women demanded more freedoms, so they were given. If you present yourself as weak and unworthy of being listened to, that's how you're treated. Otherwise, people thinking you're a seed-spiller is irrelevant. They can be made to bend.

Women care a lot more about perceptions. Men often care more about power. Funnily women who seek to emulate men, still tend to not understand what they are trying to emulate.

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Its not a matter of other people restricting, its a matter of choosing to take. Often not even taking... women demanded more freedoms, so they were given. If you present yourself as weak and unworthy of being listened to, that's how you're treated. Otherwise, people thinking you're a seed-spiller is irrelevant. They can be made to bend. Women care a lot more about perceptions. Men often care more about power.

This may seem unrelated, but Zsych, were you born a white, well off male?

How people hold you in their minds does have an effect on the opportunities afforded you, especially where those mindsets are institutionalised. Can the misconceptions be overcome? Of course. Doesn't erase the effect they have until they are.

[SelfMadeBum]

For my own information, in 20 words or less, what is your position here?

[Clueless]

No "war on women". No structural bias (in the US). Cultural/religious bias may always exist to varying degrees. Done.

[SelfMadeBum]

I agree there is no war on women.

As for where we disagree, I will begin here: What, other than culture, informs the structural makeup of a society?

[Clueless]

I understand your point but as Zsych pointed out (and I agree) women demanded access to equality through structural change and got it. What we're left with is the reality that attitudes and culture cannot be changed as quickly as laws. And of course the religious groups who lobby to impose their own ideology on the masses.

[SelfMadeBum]

As long as we agree that writing something in a law book does not erase discrimination or the myriad forms of inequality that may exist.

[Clueless]

Only a fool would believe otherwise. But at the same time I think people have a tendency to see discrimination where none exists. And it's a shame to realize that the paranoia has become so severe that accurately identifying someone as female denotes a human whose only use is as a living incubator.

I'm pretty sure the word origin didn't include that connotation. It's ridiculous.

[Ray9]

Feminism is a wretched club of malcontents unable to deal with the fact that nature endowed females with a smaller brain and no penis. They did however, get a bigger mouth which they use to shorten the lifespan of males.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminism is a wretched club of malcontents unable to deal with the fact that nature endowed females with a smaller brain and no penis. They did however, get a bigger mouth which they use to shorten the lifespan of males.

Is that all it takes? I want to write you lovely letters.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminism is a wretched club of malcontents unable to deal with the fact that nature endowed females with a smaller brain and no penis. They did however, get a bigger mouth which they use to shorten the lifespan of males.

Are you married or involved in a relationship?

If so, she's a lucky, lucky lady.

---------- Post added 06-07-2012 at 09:19 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only a fool would believe otherwise. But at the same time I think people have a tendency to see discrimination where none exists. And it's a shame to realize that the paranoia has become so severe that accurately identifying someone as female denotes a human whose only use is as a living incubator. I'm pretty sure the word origin didn't include that connotation. It's ridiculous.

I think it's natural to be especially sensitive to slights, if one is used to being handed them.

I'm not sure where that inference was made. Storm did clarify what she meant.

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	While an occasional sexist in society doesn't hurt much, when those groups start to gain power and to enforce their sexism - then you have a problem. To counter-act it, such sexism must continued to be called out and seen for the ugly, despicable thing it is.

Amen.

	That something negative was interpreted indicates that the problem is on the reader's end.

Relevant comic is relevant.

( Show Spoiler )

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The idea of course being that communication is much more difficult than it seems at first glance.

	And of course the religious groups who lobby to impose their own ideology on the masses.

That's where the term "war on women" came from -- the extremist groups lobbying to remove or alter preexisting women's rights (namely abortion). Of course it's an exaggeration, but it's to call Republicans out on their bullshit.

	Feminism is a wretched club of malcontents unable to deal with the fact that nature endowed females with a smaller brain and no penis. They did however, get a bigger mouth which they use to shorten the lifespan of males.

Ray9, I'm amazed you haven't had your silly ideas slapped out of you.

[Clueless]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think it's natural to be especially sensitive to slights, if one is used to being handed them. I'm not sure where that inference was made. Storm did clarify what she meant.

Yes. She did.

	Originally Posted by Storm
	What does it mean to "value a person as a female" instead of just saying "valuing a person." To me, it seems you must first see them as a womb, and then as a person.

She said specifically that to be valued as a female instead of just as a person is negative.

Why must that be so?

[Vagrant]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	She said specifically that to be valued as a female instead of just as a person is negative. Why must that be so?

It's saying that you value her female attributes over her human attributes.

It's a subtle difference, and I'll give an analogy:

Let's say you meet a child who is bound to a wheelchair. You can call them a handicapped kid, or a kid with a handicap. To call them a handicapped kid suggests you think of them as handicapped first, and a kid second. To call them a kid with a handicap suggests that you think of them as a kid first, and handicapped second. You can do the same thing by calling somebody a "female person" or a "person who is female," but in common conversation this simply comes out as "female" or "person."

[SelfMadeBum]

She simply meant a person's designation according to sex should be a secondary consideration, and not the primary.

Ha, I see Vagrant beat me to it.

And before you go there, no, femininity is not being equalled to a disability.

[Clueless]

Ok Vagrant. So what did I mean when I wrote this:

	Originally Posted by Clueless
	Of the two of us I'm quite certain at this point that it is I who holds the notion of the human female in higher esteem. Kinda sorry for you that this is true.