Red Mosquito

malice wrote:

Self wrote:The wrong way.

where have you been?

Doing a study on the correlation between posting and drinking.

And bottom paging the shit outta people.

Self wrote:

malice wrote:

Self wrote:The wrong way.

where have you been?

Doing a study on the correlation between posting and drinking.

pls report back on your findings in the most masculine way possible

malice wrote:

Self wrote:

malice wrote:

Self wrote:The wrong way.

where have you been?

Doing a study on the correlation between posting and drinking.

pls report back on your findings in the most masculine way possible

*grunts*

cutuphalfdead wrote:

malice wrote:

Self wrote:

malice wrote:

Self wrote:The wrong way.

where have you been?

Doing a study on the correlation between posting and drinking.

pls report back on your findings in the most masculine way possible

*grunts*

not bad, but *farts* works better I think

harmless wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:Going to Salon for an article on men is probably not your best source. What the article is saying is that men must not only take on what were previously female tasks (I'm all for this) but they must also do them as a female would. I call bullshit on that. As long as the task is being done, let men figure out the best way to do it. Telling them to do it the female way is creating a male unfriendly environment. Just as it was a female unfriendly environment in many sciences and technology courses when women were expected to do things the male way.

I didn't get that out of the article, but I guess I can agree with you insofar as "the female way" should just be "a way", that may or not be the most appropriate depending on the circumstances.

And I'll pull articles from any source if I find it germane enough to the discussion at hand.

You can't un-gender "ways". If it's not the female way, it will be the male way, as it has been all through the centuries.

Then in the context of public education... what would be the ideal solution? Separate classrooms?

girls tend to perform better academically when taught in small collaborative groups without boys.

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:Going to Salon for an article on men is probably not your best source. What the article is saying is that men must not only take on what were previously female tasks (I'm all for this) but they must also do them as a female would. I call bullshit on that. As long as the task is being done, let men figure out the best way to do it. Telling them to do it the female way is creating a male unfriendly environment. Just as it was a female unfriendly environment in many sciences and technology courses when women were expected to do things the male way.

I didn't get that out of the article, but I guess I can agree with you insofar as "the female way" should just be "a way", that may or not be the most appropriate depending on the circumstances.

And I'll pull articles from any source if I find it germane enough to the discussion at hand.

You can't un-gender "ways". If it's not the female way, it will be the male way, as it has been all through the centuries.

Then in the context of public education... what would be the ideal solution? Separate classrooms?

What do you care more about, the individual and outcome, or the idea and the attempt at something you can call equality?

Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

You don't achieve any kind of equality by focussing on "individual freedoms"; that's the major mistake of Libertarianism.

harmless wrote:

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

You don't achieve any kind of equality by focussing on "individual freedoms"; that's the major mistake of Libertarianism.

You may being confusing equal outcomes with equal beginnings.

malice wrote:

Self wrote:

malice wrote:

Self wrote:The wrong way.

where have you been?

Doing a study on the correlation between posting and drinking.

pls report back on your findings in the most masculine way possible

I got nothing.

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

Honestly, I no longer have any idea what equality of opportunity means. What would there need to be in order to say that was achieved? Can it ever be achieved given the personal/family dynamic of opportunity?

broken iris wrote:

harmless wrote:

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

You don't achieve any kind of equality by focussing on "individual freedoms"; that's the major mistake of Libertarianism.

You may being confusing equal outcomes with equal beginnings.

I can guarantee my statement made more sense than yours.

Inequality is a problem which is societal and systemic. Inequality is deeply embedded in culture, and equality isn't achieved by every individual spouting "equal opportunities" Libertarian stuff. Equality will only ever be achieved by critiquing, challenging and tipping the balances of power on a systemic level. That's why feminists talk about "the patriarchy" -- they don't mean every man, they mean the system(s) of society which automatically tend to favour the male/masculine by default, whenever there's a choice between the two.

harmless wrote:Inequality is a problem which is societal and systemic. Inequality is deeply embedded in culture, and equality isn't achieved by every individual spouting "equal opportunities" Libertarian stuff. Equality will only ever be achieved by critiquing, challenging and tipping the balances of power on a systemic level. That's why feminists talk about "the patriarchy" -- they don't mean every man, they mean the system(s) of society which automatically tend to favour the male/masculine by default, whenever there's a choice between the two.

Should areas where biology has created the inequality attempt to be addressed at a societal or systemic level?

surfndestroy wrote:

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

Honestly, I no longer have any idea what equality of opportunity means. What would there need to be in order to say that was achieved? Can it ever be achieved given the personal/family dynamic of opportunity?

For me it means that the state neither explicitly impedes nor empowers any individual over another. Genetic and familial/social advantages will always be there making true equality impossible (well, improbable), but the state should not be trying to game the system to achieve some desired outcome if it's not what would occur naturally. Ever read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"? The role of the state should be to remove barriers to success to let people be free to achieve. For some these would be physical such as wheelchair access, for others economic such living in a location that requires busing or the school providing basic supplies like pens and paper. I can see the argument that a 'gendered' educational environment would be such a barrier which is why I like this thread, to try and understand that point of view further.

harmless wrote:Inequality is a problem which is societal and systemic. Inequality is deeply embedded in culture, and equality isn't achieved by every individual spouting "equal opportunities" Libertarian stuff. Equality will only ever be achieved by critiquing, challenging and tipping the balances of power on a systemic level. That's why feminists talk about "the patriarchy" -- they don't mean every man, they mean the system(s) of society which automatically tend to favour the male/masculine by default, whenever there's a choice between the two.

Can you give some examples of this so i can better understand?

surfndestroy wrote:

harmless wrote:Inequality is a problem which is societal and systemic. Inequality is deeply embedded in culture, and equality isn't achieved by every individual spouting "equal opportunities" Libertarian stuff. Equality will only ever be achieved by critiquing, challenging and tipping the balances of power on a systemic level. That's why feminists talk about "the patriarchy" -- they don't mean every man, they mean the system(s) of society which automatically tend to favour the male/masculine by default, whenever there's a choice between the two.

Should areas where biology has created the inequality attempt to be addressed at a societal or systemic level?

Biology has nothing to do with systemic or societal equality.

Anyway, that's all I had to say on the matter, I'm not debating anything like this on such a base level as "Men and women are different physically so inequality...". It's just sad that the feminism thread has been taken over by such a macho conversation; I don't think the validity of feminism needs debating by men.

broken iris wrote:

surfndestroy wrote:

broken iris wrote:Equality of opportunity, so I suppose choice #1.

Honestly, I no longer have any idea what equality of opportunity means. What would there need to be in order to say that was achieved? Can it ever be achieved given the personal/family dynamic of opportunity?

For me it means that the state neither explicitly impedes nor empowers any individual over another. Genetic and familial/social advantages will always be there making true equality impossible (well, improbable), but the state should not be trying to game the system to achieve some desired outcome if it's not what would occur naturally. Ever read Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron"? The role of the state should be to remove barriers to success to let people be free to achieve. For some these would be physical such as wheelchair access, for others economic such living in a location that requires busing or the school providing basic supplies like pens and paper. I can see the argument that a 'gendered' educational environment would be such a barrier which is why I like this thread, to try and understand that point of view further.

harmless wrote:Inequality is a problem which is societal and systemic. Inequality is deeply embedded in culture, and equality isn't achieved by every individual spouting "equal opportunities" Libertarian stuff. Equality will only ever be achieved by critiquing, challenging and tipping the balances of power on a systemic level. That's why feminists talk about "the patriarchy" -- they don't mean every man, they mean the system(s) of society which automatically tend to favour the male/masculine by default, whenever there's a choice between the two.

Can you give some examples of this so i can better understand?

Malice would do a much better job of that than I ever could; she already has, actually.