Feminism

[malice]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

I think men are more affected by these changes because the push for equality has been focused on women's rights without much consideration for how this impacts men in the society. as a result, men are now being forced to redefine their own identities as men, and this results in a huge upheaval in how we handle relationships of all kinds.

I think you're right about this part. While women have done a decent job of taking on traditionally male tasks (when they can), men haven't come nearly as far taking on traditionally female tasks.

I agree, although some of the problem as I see it, is that what has traditionally defined men's roles (and thus their identity as 'masculine') has been taken up by women.
women provide for their families, women participate in the military... I'm unsure if women fight in combat in the US- I don't think they do though- in other countries (I'm thinking of Israel, for one) women do fight in combat... women become politically powerful (again, not to the degree men do but the opportunity now exists when it never did in earlier iterations of this country) - and I'm sure there's numerous activities that were always considered totally male that women now at least have some option to participate in that didn't exist before - all of these things have psychological ramifications that I don't think we've thought much about over the last 40 years or so (as feminism has come to the fore).

I've now read a number of articles about this phenomenon - that while women have developed a fairly strong support system for empowerment as a result of the women's movement and provide direction for young women to follow, men have been left somewhat floundering in the aftermath.

it's pretty easy to assume men aren't terribly affected by the changes in women's roles, because (I believe) we still attribute many negatives to how men think and feel and experience life differently than women - but some of that is social conditioning and stereotyping.
I think there has to be some admissions on both sides of the gender fence that men and women are not all that different in how we react to the world around us, men are just as likely to suffer feelings of inadequacy and insecurity about their place in the world, and there needs to be as complex and as well developed a support system for men as has developed for women over the years.

the main problem that I see is there still exists a a lot of us and them comparisons - I'd be much happier if we stopped defining ourselves in this way.

there are differences in how we behave, and perhaps also in how we think about life, but I wonder often now about how much of that is because that's how the society has dictated we see each other.

someone here told me awhile back that they didn't think there was that much of a difference between how men and women thought. I disagreed at the time... but I've thought about it a lot over the last few months and ultimately, they're probably right.
we're first 'people' - brains inside of a skull.
next we're men or women.
the stronger identity comes from the brain, not the gender at birth.

tl;dr version: people are people, how we perceive one another is up to us?

[broken iris]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

While I agree that culturally prescribed roles based on gender, like daddy-breadwinner and mommy-homemaker, should be relegated to history's rubbish bin, I think in that first part of the article what she was getting at is that there are innate differences (biological) between the genders and it should not be a goal of feminism to act against them or pretend they don't exist as the macro-effects of testosterone and estrogen on the brain are pretty well documented.

For most of recorded history society has been engineered towards the way men work and think. Paglia suggests we may have overcompensated for this and tilted the system too far in the other direction, achieving not equality, freedom from prejudice, and empowerment; the traditional goals of feminism, but have create a system toxic to boys like the older system was toxic to girls. I tend to agree with this view, though my knowledge of any research or analysis done on this is limited.

[harmless]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

While I agree that culturally prescribed roles based on gender, like daddy-breadwinner and mommy-homemaker, should be relegated to history's rubbish bin, I think in that first part of the article what she was getting at is that there are innate differences (biological) between the genders and it should not be a goal of feminism to act against them or pretend they don't exist as the macro-effects of testosterone and estrogen on the brain are pretty well documented.

However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.

[broken iris]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

While I agree that culturally prescribed roles based on gender, like daddy-breadwinner and mommy-homemaker, should be relegated to history's rubbish bin, I think in that first part of the article what she was getting at is that there are innate differences (biological) between the genders and it should not be a goal of feminism to act against them or pretend they don't exist as the macro-effects of testosterone and estrogen on the brain are pretty well documented.

However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.

Hey bud, I am going to respond to this as I think it's interesting, but it's gonna be a bit since I don't want to answer with one of my normal incoherent and pointlessly ignorant posts.

[malice]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

While I agree that culturally prescribed roles based on gender, like daddy-breadwinner and mommy-homemaker, should be relegated to history's rubbish bin, I think in that first part of the article what she was getting at is that there are innate differences (biological) between the genders and it should not be a goal of feminism to act against them or pretend they don't exist as the macro-effects of testosterone and estrogen on the brain are pretty well documented.

However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.

Hey bud, I am going to respond to this as I think it's interesting, but it's gonna be a bit since I don't want to answer with one of my normal incoherent and pointlessly ignorant posts.

meta comment

[broken iris]

That was a very difficult long read to get through, just because I think the very concept of prescribed sex roles is one that needs to be thrown into the garbage can of history. Suffice to say, I didn't agree with her at all.

While I agree that culturally prescribed roles based on gender, like daddy-breadwinner and mommy-homemaker, should be relegated to history's rubbish bin, I think in that first part of the article what she was getting at is that there are innate differences (biological) between the genders and it should not be a goal of feminism to act against them or pretend they don't exist as the macro-effects of testosterone and estrogen on the brain are pretty well documented.

However, men and women have varying levels of both. Factors such as disability (and others) affect our ability to adhere to stereotype and expectation, and both gender and biological sex are a spectrum, not a binary, so it's better to do away with stereotype and assumption / expectation altogether.

Hey bud, I am going to respond to this as I think it's interesting, but it's gonna be a bit since I don't want to answer with one of my normal incoherent and pointlessly ignorant posts.

meta comment

thanks, I put some thought into it.

[Peeps]

tl;dr version: people are people, how we perceive one another is up to us?

i am deducting 2 pts from your rebuttal for not using this to eloquently surmise your tl;dr

[malice]

tl;dr version: people are people, how we perceive one another is up to us?

i am deducting 2 pts from your rebuttal for not using this to eloquently surmise your tl;dr

what kind of scale we talking bout here?

[Peeps]

ok mary, after sleeping on it for the night the scale is on a 1/4 pt scoring system up to 5 whole points.

right now you are hovering around 1.5 or 2 after the deductions. i still have to tally everything.

[surfndestroy]

Should there be gender norming for Marines? Is seperate but equal equality? Over half the females candidates failed the fitness tests at the end of training. The biggest barrier seeming to be able to do just three pull-ups.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... ruits.html


The Marines decided to postpone a minimum physical fitness test for female Marines after more than half of the female recruits in boot camp failed to meet the standard. Starting on Jan. 1 female Marines were supposed to be able to complete at least three pullups on their annual fitness test, which, according to the Associated Press, was “part of the process of equalizing physical standards to integrate women into combat jobs.” The pullup test was tried on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot in South Carolina, but only 45 percent of the recruits were able to meet the minimum standard. Instead, female recruits will be able to opt to complete a “flexed-arm hang” for a minimum of 15 seconds.


The Marines had planned on using the pullup requirement, the AP reports, based on the belief “that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.” Officials said that the Marine Corps decided to delay the requirement because “the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high,” according to the AP. “The delay rekindled sharp debate in the military on the question of whether women have the physical strength for some military jobs, as service branches move toward opening thousands of combat roles to them in 2016,” the AP reports.

[stip]

i wouldn't be surprised if that decision had much much more to do with the need to meet recruitment goals.

[malice]

while I'm no expert, a quick check online gives some info on women in the Israeli military - is that separate but equal? and if so, is at least the idea of 'equal opportunity' worth anything in this argument? it seems to me that's essentially what Israel offers women in the military, since most women are not, in fact, built like men...

http://www.idfinfo.co.il/For_Women_Main.php?cat=a7

[surfndestroy]

i wouldn't be surprised if that decision had much much more to do with the need to meet recruitment goals.

I'm sure it was. Is it equality when affirmative action recruiting goals trump equal testing standards?

What I find really sad is that after an eleven week training program that any person is not able to do three pull-ups. I'm nearly fifty, not in great shape with a bad shoulder and went to the gym last night and was able to do five.

[surfndestroy]

while I'm no expert, a quick check online gives some info on women in the Israeli military - is that separate but equal? and if so, is at least the idea of 'equal opportunity' worth anything in this argument? it seems to me that's essentially what Israel offers women in the military, since most women are not, in fact, built like men...

http://www.idfinfo.co.il/For_Women_Main.php?cat=a7

Do you favor different standards by sex? Or by career track?

Differing standards by career track seems logical. But I believe within the career track that the same standards should be applied to both sexes, as long as the standard being tested is relevant to the job requirements.

[malice]

while I'm no expert, a quick check online gives some info on women in the Israeli military - is that separate but equal? and if so, is at least the idea of 'equal opportunity' worth anything in this argument? it seems to me that's essentially what Israel offers women in the military, since most women are not, in fact, built like men...

http://www.idfinfo.co.il/For_Women_Main.php?cat=a7

Do you favor different standards by sex? Or by career track?

Differing standards by career track seems logical. But I believe within the career track that the same standards should be applied to both sexes, as long as the standard being tested is relevant to the job requirements.

this reminds me of some of the issues I've heard raised over black scholarships/whatever minority scholarships etc - if 'they' want to be treated equally, shouldn't that mean no scholarships because you're black etc? I mean that's not "equal" right?

the problem to me is that the playing field isn't level to begin with in cases like that - that's the impetus for having specific scholarships for black kids - because they are not or have not been afforded the same opportunities over the last 400 some odd years as white kids in the US - so you must attempt to account for that initial imbalance by adding some 'weight' to the scales to provide an opportunity for the black student to achieve scholastically on a level playing field.

I just don't know that the words and implications of "equal" and "same" should be interchangeable.
In fact, it comes across to me as an intentional failure of logical argument to say: women should be held to the same standards physically as men are currently.

(or blacks should be held to the same standards financially as whites are currently, if that makes the argument less about gender and more about equality)

the idea to me is things are NOT equitable between how various groups are treated in the country, so differences in approach have to be made in order to MAKE things more equitable in the future.

perhaps women should be exposed to the same physical activities as men are exposed to their whole lives from the time they are young girls so by the time the reach an age where they can (or want to, or must if they are drafted, etc) join the military, it will be no big deal for women to do pull ups or whatever the current physical requirements are for doing that now.

even women who grew up as 'tom-boys' (which in itself is a derogatory term, but it's the only one I know to describe it) are not really physically trained the same way boys are.

boys and girls are treated differently from the day they are born.
how do you make it more 'equal'?

[surfndestroy]

while I'm no expert, a quick check online gives some info on women in the Israeli military - is that separate but equal? and if so, is at least the idea of 'equal opportunity' worth anything in this argument? it seems to me that's essentially what Israel offers women in the military, since most women are not, in fact, built like men...

http://www.idfinfo.co.il/For_Women_Main.php?cat=a7

Do you favor different standards by sex? Or by career track?

Differing standards by career track seems logical. But I believe within the career track that the same standards should be applied to both sexes, as long as the standard being tested is relevant to the job requirements.

this reminds me of some of the issues I've heard raised over black scholarships/whatever minority scholarships etc - if 'they' want to be treated equally, shouldn't that mean no scholarships because you're black etc? I mean that's not "equal" right?

the problem to me is that the playing field isn't level to begin with in cases like that - that's the impetus for having specific scholarships for black kids - because they are not or have not been afforded the same opportunities over the last 400 some odd years as white kids in the US - so you must attempt to account for that initial imbalance by adding some 'weight' to the scales to provide an opportunity for the black student to achieve scholastically on a level playing field.

I just don't know that the words and implications of "equal" and "same" should be interchangeable.
In fact, it comes across to me as an intentional failure of logical argument to say: women should be held to the same standards physically as men are currently.

(or blacks should be held to the same standards financially as whites are currently, if that makes the argument less about gender and more about equality)

the idea to me is things are NOT equitable between how various groups are treated in the country, so differences in approach have to be made in order to MAKE things more equitable in the future.

perhaps women should be exposed to the same physical activities as men are exposed to their whole lives from the time they are young girls so by the time the reach an age where they can (or want to, or must if they are drafted, etc) join the military, it will be no big deal for women to do pull ups or whatever the current physical requirements are for doing that now.

even women who grew up as 'tom-boys' (which in itself is a derogatory term, but it's the only one I know to describe it) are not really physically trained the same way boys are.

boys and girls are treated differently from the day they are born.
how do you make it more 'equal'?

Three pull-ups and this is the card you play. Weak.

Women already have lower entrance standards in order to provide "equal opportunity". So by equal, you don't actual want equal treatment. You want preferential when it suits you. This is the exact form of feminism I cannot get behind, especially when it's over three pull-ups. I guess all those ladies at cross fit doing them are just super human.

[Green Habit]

I find it hard to believe that every job in the Marines requires people to do three pullups. You'd think that they would be able to place them in roles that don't require brute strength. And that statement doesn't require any mention of the sexes, either--hell, I've never been able to do a pullup in my life.

[malice]

I find it hard to believe that every job in the Marines requires people to do three pullups. You'd think that they would be able to place them in roles that don't require brute strength. And that statement doesn't require any mention of the sexes, either--hell, I've never been able to do a pullup in my life.

weak

[malice]

while I'm no expert, a quick check online gives some info on women in the Israeli military - is that separate but equal? and if so, is at least the idea of 'equal opportunity' worth anything in this argument? it seems to me that's essentially what Israel offers women in the military, since most women are not, in fact, built like men...

http://www.idfinfo.co.il/For_Women_Main.php?cat=a7

Do you favor different standards by sex? Or by career track?

Differing standards by career track seems logical. But I believe within the career track that the same standards should be applied to both sexes, as long as the standard being tested is relevant to the job requirements.

this reminds me of some of the issues I've heard raised over black scholarships/whatever minority scholarships etc - if 'they' want to be treated equally, shouldn't that mean no scholarships because you're black etc? I mean that's not "equal" right?

the problem to me is that the playing field isn't level to begin with in cases like that - that's the impetus for having specific scholarships for black kids - because they are not or have not been afforded the same opportunities over the last 400 some odd years as white kids in the US - so you must attempt to account for that initial imbalance by adding some 'weight' to the scales to provide an opportunity for the black student to achieve scholastically on a level playing field.

I just don't know that the words and implications of "equal" and "same" should be interchangeable.
In fact, it comes across to me as an intentional failure of logical argument to say: women should be held to the same standards physically as men are currently.

(or blacks should be held to the same standards financially as whites are currently, if that makes the argument less about gender and more about equality)

the idea to me is things are NOT equitable between how various groups are treated in the country, so differences in approach have to be made in order to MAKE things more equitable in the future.

perhaps women should be exposed to the same physical activities as men are exposed to their whole lives from the time they are young girls so by the time the reach an age where they can (or want to, or must if they are drafted, etc) join the military, it will be no big deal for women to do pull ups or whatever the current physical requirements are for doing that now.

even women who grew up as 'tom-boys' (which in itself is a derogatory term, but it's the only one I know to describe it) are not really physically trained the same way boys are.

boys and girls are treated differently from the day they are born.
how do you make it more 'equal'?

Three pull-ups and this is the card you play. Weak.

Women already have lower entrance standards in order to provide "equal opportunity". So by equal, you don't actual want equal treatment. You want preferential when it suits you. This is the exact form of feminism I cannot get behind, especially when it's over three pull-ups. I guess all those ladies at cross fit doing them are just super human.

so my opinion is a card I'm playing? and since you disagree with it, your only rebuttal is - I hate that kind of feminism?

seriously, man. same treatment is a bullshit ploy. and what you call preferential is the 'same' as telling me that it doesn't matter how society has always treated women (or black people for that matter) -

I mean, hell why bother treating 'em equally if the can't bench press 150 lbs?

or run a 10k?

or wrestle a 500 lb gorilla?

see - these are ridiculous and highly arbitrary prerequisites to establish, I'm hoping you'll agree - but you see nothing arbitrary in the prerequisites for military service (by which I mean combat training etc) - when they are only what's been accepted as normal by the military because only men have ever participated in this arm of the military.

ALL people are different, and have different capabilities. ALL people are able to discover or create alternate ways of handling the rigors of combat, or life for that matter. humans are able to handle a multitude of various difficult tasks and demanding situations (such as fighting in a war) by using numerous AND VARIED means of approach. therefore the entire argument that women want preferential treatment is bogus because it already assumes the "Norm" is one of male created standards, and there is only THAT way of approach which works.

so I find myself "hating' your kind of male-ism due to your lack of perception and inability to see past what has been deemed 'normal', 'average', or 'acceptable' based solely on male entry and participation in combat military services.

what you think of as normal (or even already preferential) standards for women to have for the military, i see as yet another male created set of standards that are optimal for men.

which card is that, btw? I'm dying to know.

[broken iris]

see - these are ridiculous and highly arbitrary prerequisites to establish, I'm hoping you'll agree - but you see nothing arbitrary in the prerequisites for military service (by which I mean combat training etc) - when they are only what's been accepted as normal by the military because only men have ever participated in this arm of the military.

It's somewhat arbitrary, but I think in this case it's different as the role of the Marines has evolved to more front line combat. In a deployed area everyone must be capable of fighting, even the cooks, so there has to be a high level fitness as the standard and many women are perfectly capable of achieving this and I have no issues with women fighting next to men if they are willing, but combat packs & gun weigh 75-90 pounds. If you cannot do three pullups, you are not going to be able run alongside your counterparts carrying that stuff. It's like being a firefighter. If you cannot drag a 200lb dude with smoke inhalation issues out of a burning building, you should not be one of the people that goes in, and that's who the Marines are.

ALL people are different, and have different capabilities. ALL people are able to discover or create alternate ways of handling the rigors of combat, or life for that matter. humans are able to handle a multitude of various difficult tasks and demanding situations (such as fighting in a war) by using numerous AND VARIED means of approach. therefore the entire argument that women want preferential treatment is bogus because it already assumes the "Norm" is one of male created standards, and there is only THAT way of approach which works.

I don't disagree with any of this, but there are many ways that less physically strong people can serve in the military, even in forward deployed situations: analysts, linguists, supply chain, techs, etc. They might not be Marines, but they can stills serve their country in combat if that is their choice.