This has been the logic of man since forever. At least until equal rights and such started to appear. But even then equal isn't really equal. Anyways. Would you like this label to be stuck to you just because of your body? Something you had no choice in deciding? What if you were a born leader, but since your a female you have ding dongs like the ones here telling you that you shouldn't be a leader because of some stupid game of telephone? "Well my second cousin had a female boss once and HATED her so obviously female leaders suck" Yes that is total, rational thinking. What if you wanted to pursue a career in, let's say, the automobile industry? When people think of cars and mechanics, they think men. But a girl can be just as interested in it if she wanted to, and she could be just as good as every other male in that area. But no one wants to hire a female mechanic because statistics say that males are better at it than women. So their goes your dream, flushed down the toilet. All because your were born a female. Imagine how devastating that could be to someone. Their lifelong hopes and dreams, gone all because
Calm down buddy, I wasn't insulting or putting the female gender down. I was just merely stating that men and women have presumed roles that aren't usually very flexible. mean, if a woman want to go into construction, I mean go for it, live your dreams. I'm just saying she'd be highly prejudiced against. And I'm also saying that women are typically better at certain tasks than men are ad vice versa. Nothing sexist. If a man wants to nurture kids, go for it. Just that GENERALLY women are typically better at it.
True, but isn't it also somewhat innate? Genetic? I mean not everybody, I know girls who hate kids. I just presumed that women are naturally better at nurturing than men.
Be careful with that. But to some extent, yes. The mother will experience certain stimuli, like the widening of the birth canal at birth, or the baby suckle during breast feeding, that will release oxitocin and increase the bond between mother and child. But the father sometimes also experiences similar hormone releases, for whatever reason, I'm not an expert in hormone physiology.
But we're very plastic with that, I mean women are not contrained to be good mothers because of their biology, and on the other side men can learn to be very good caretakers as well. It's usually society that hinder any change even though we'd be capable of adapting individually.
It seems to be more societal. In nature, sometimes males take their nurturing parent role more strongly, such as the penguin.
Most species know maternal care, some species, penguins but also sea horses, know paternal care. But I don't see how that would be an argument against genetics?
Got studies to back that claim? I think men and women can be equally as abusive or caring.
Nah, I'll just withdraw the statement. I just thought that was assumed or general knowledge. But I understand. I'm nurturing, and I'm male.
Pro tip: the sentence immediately before you say "nothing sexist" is sexist.
Except for when I'm not trying to be sexist. It's like saying I'm not 100% for gay marriage and everyone then says "Wow you homophobic *******." Taken out context. Yes women are equal to men. But if we were 100% equal there wouldn't be different genders; we have differences.
Most species know maternal care, some species, penguins but also sea horses, know paternal care. But I don't see how that would be an argument against genetics?
I totally agree, there are species where fathers are the main, if only, caretaker. It's just you don't hear of a single father raising kids very often, almost always its a single mother. And while genetics isn't a huge argument, at least it's just kinda....there.
Pretty sure he isn't a troll. He could possibly be so..but it seems not.
Except for when I'm not trying to be sexist. It's like saying I'm not 100% for gay marriage and everyone then says "Wow you homophobic *******." Taken out context. Yes women are equal to men. But if we were 100% equal there wouldn't be different genders; we have differences.
By definition, it is sexist. Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.
Also, the elimination of gender roles wouldn't be an elimination of gender classifications.
it is there. it shouldn't have to be there. culture and society has brought us there. if we keep agreeing with it, we will stay there. i say, pack some boots, we are going to walk.
But if we were 100% equal there wouldn't be different genders
how do you wanna make babies?
i dont see why equality has to matter on what sort of organ system sits in your body. they dont differ so much that 1 task can't be done by either of them.
Fine then, since everybody thinks I'm sexist I take that comment back.
i know what you try to say. and that is not sexist. but the way you try to say it is sexist. the problem is that sexism is still happening. you just say what is going on and that makes your sentences sexist. you keep linking it to the gender. while the problem is the society. we all say. woman and man are equal. we all think (well most) woman and man are equal. but it is still there. woman still get paid less. and often does the nursing. etc. etc. and if there was a real reason for it then we could say that. however do i not think that anyone here could find a reason for it not changing, while we do try. (maybe because not everyone try's. but that is just too obvious xD )
it is there. it shouldn't have to be there. culture and society has brought us there. if we keep agreeing with it, we will stay there. i say, pack some boots, we are going to walk.
I do enjoy me a quality walk!
how do you wanna make babies?
i dont see why equality has to matter on what sort of organ system sits in your body. they dont differ so much that 1 task can't be done by either of them.
I understand, and I wasn't saying men and women are required to be in certain roles. I was just saying that I feel that some of this is genetic to an extent.
i know what you try to say. and that is not sexist. but the way you try to say it is sexist. the problem is that sexism is still happening. you just say what is going on and that makes your sentences sexist. you keep linking it to the gender. while the problem is the society. we all say. woman and man are equal. we all think (well most) woman and man are equal. but it is still there. woman still get paid less. and often does the nursing. etc. etc. and if there was a real reason for it then we could say that. however do i not think that anyone here could find a reason for it not changing, while we do try. (maybe because not everyone try's. but that is just too obvious xD )
I'm just not super proficient at saying what I mean I guess. I just feel it is being read into more than it is, just like with my example of gay marriage. Am I behind it? Personally no. But when you say that everyone assumes you're a homophobic bigot who hates gays which couldn't be further from the truth.
You are proud of being hateful, and I will criticize being proud of hatred until the day I die. Perhaps you should think about your beliefs some.
I always get a good laugh when intolerant people complain that you are not being tolerant of them.
Woman are amazing as housewives and home keepers. This isn't sexist, it's just what they're good at. When they try to take over a man's job, it almost always ends up bad. But just because they shouldn't be working full time jobs, it doesn't mean they can't do great things.
Also funny is this ^ Trying to couch a paragraph of bigoted crap with the disclaimer "This Isn't Sexist!" just like when someone says "no offense but" and then says something offense, or "i'm not a racist but" and then says something racist.
Let me help you, definition of Sexist: "noun, prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." So saying women aren't good at..., or can't... is by definition sexist.
Maybe in your community the women typically stay at home as housewives. Thats fine, but I would encourage you to expand your life experience, and be less judgmental about things you don't know much about.
Calm down buddy, I wasn't insulting or putting the female gender down. I was just merely stating that men and women have presumed roles that aren't usually very flexible. mean, if a woman want to go into construction, I mean go for it, live your dreams. I'm just saying she'd be highly prejudiced against. And I'm also saying that women are typically better at certain tasks than men are ad vice versa. Nothing sexist. If a man wants to nurture kids, go for it. Just that GENERALLY women are typically better at it.
Well I am quite calm, I'm just trying to get you to understand just what you're saying. If everyone is thinking that males and females have specific roles based off of gender, then nothing is really going to change. You need to stop with the whole "girls are good at this guys are not as good at this" and vice versa. I get that you think it's okay for people to pursue their dreams, and that's good. But it doesn't matter if you're sexist or feminist or whatever -ist. If you just think that GENERALLY a gender is better at something than the other, nothing is going to change. If everyone holds on to this thought, there will still be prejudice against genders. No matter how small. So just try to let it go, man. Let it go. I get that you weren't trying to be, and you aren't running and screaming that men and women will always have different roles, but you still believe that we do. And that belief is enough to be called sexist. And it doesn't mean that you're some raging troll, it means you're human. Just a small degree of sexist is all. If you don't like being called that, change your views.
If you just think that GENERALLY a gender is better at something than the other, nothing is going to change.
Athletics.
Doesn't change anything about your point, but- just sayin'.
You know, Wyrzen is not totally wrong. There are biological differences between the gender, that's obvious. I think that's just what he's been saying.
Of course those differences don't have to mean much, and that's where he's been unclear/unaware. Each gender can learn to be just as good as the other gender in a specific activity. Some biological things just give certain, let's say bonuses or maluses compared to the other gender. But they're not the final word regarding the individuals capacities, and they're negligable in most domains.
Yes it's true but I shan't get into this topic. It's fueled by a lot of rage and such and I don't want to open that door. I don't think I can post without making an utter fool of myself because there isn't much to back it up. Guys are better at athletics but I'm talking more about the workplace. I think that some sports should be co-ed, and I know that there are some. But girl's versions of the sports are highly underrated and no one really cares about them as much as men's sports. Which sucks whenever you grow up playing sports against guys and beating their butts, but after you reach a certain age you can't play with the guys anymore. Ah well anyways.
You know, Wyrzen is not totally wrong. There are biological differences between the gender, that's obvious. I think that's just what he's been saying.
It isn't necessarily wrong, but it's sexist is what the point was. And sexism is wrong.
