Dammit, Czarcasm - how am I supposed to post, “Mmmm, Mr. T, Fonz, and Jean-Luc slash” now? :mad:
(That was a joke.)
Valid argument. Terribly supported.
Seriously, the A-Team as an image of masculinity?
In all fairness. Ray Kurzweil’s sort of crazy is a lot deeper than this crazy. Kurzweil is Mad Scientist crazy. This guy is right-wing blogger crazy. 
Isn’t that just the inverse of the feminist position?
My problem with feminism has always been not so much that women are equal and should be valued and should have rights and be able to make respoinsible adult decisions, that stuff goes without saying IMV, it’s the, ‘women are just as good at being men as men are.’, stuff that irks me. And then there is of course the futurist/transgender correlate where they deny that gender is meaningful at all.
I’ve seen this kind of rant before, though never one so long-winded.
Don’t these people have any experience with happy families?
I’m sure glad my life hasn’t turned out so bad.
But what does that even mean–good at being men? Every time I ask that question, the response seems to be something like, “Well, men and women are different…they just are.” What is it specifically that makes them different in terms of personality, not biology? I think it’s better to state that there may be gender roles and those work in generalities, but for specific people, there can be differences. And if a particular woman or man wants to act in a way that goes against how people think men and women “should” act, I think that’s a good and liberating thing.
Gender may not be meaningless but I don’t think it’s so deeply attached to biology. Transgendered people and others show that you can play with gender roles and that they aren’t so welded to biology.
That definition I am familiar with; I’m curious about the answer that the self-identified anti-feminist might give.
To dismiss the article as a rant is to do yourself and the author a disservice. There are some very good points there. Like the one about rape, for instance - this is even more unequal in Britain.
That said, the author is making a fundamental mistake in that he’s all doom and gloom, instead of recognising that we are all working towards something better. Yes, there will be swings one way or the other along the road.
The disservice was done to all of us by the author himself. If he wants to be taken seriously he can use his words like a big boy, and not return repeatedly to the long-dried well of condescension and ridicule.
Which point about rape? This one:
? Is that the very good point? It’s provably incorrect and/or makes assumptions that it doesn’t qualify on the important facts, and entirely misrepresents what feminists want. And to even get to those points, you have to be willing to let this guy directly compare feminists to the actual literal Nazis.
Oh, and I’ve been rewarded for doing my due diligence here with the fact that the author’s oh-so-persuasive citations go to opinion pieces that say things like:
Yeah, I’m sticking with disgusting and worthless rant.
I was confused from the very get-go. He claims that in the 80s you had all these personas representing masculinity, but now we dont?? I could very easily throw together a collage with Vin Diesel, Sawyer from Lost, Jack Bauer, The Rock, Daniel Craig, etc. His very premise is flawed. Masculinity is still here, kicking ass as always.
This magazine, The Futurist, is the publication the World Future Society. Of which I was generally aware, but not that it had any particular political bias. Assuming it does – or is this article atypical of The Futurist’s usual fare? Does anybody know?
I have some chauvinist-piggish tendencies myself but, like most of the others commenting, quickly found the article to be an unfunny self-parody.
I’ve chatted with enough American males to know that obligation to pay child support is a big political issue for many. Maybe ???(*) is one of those.
(* - Did I overlook it, or did author not identify itself?)
Yea, that was my first thought. The writer sounds like your average bar-fly ranting after he’s been taken to the cleaners during a divorce, made-up words and all.
You forgot [del]Poland[/del]Stephen Colbert.
Of course as you say it, it’s the correct answer. But look at the contempt shown for stay-at-home Mothers for instance. Being a stay-at-home Mom was considered a betrayal of feminist values. Only working was something of value. It was kind of perverse because it was ok to work as a teacher, raising OTHER people’s kids for a wage, but if you raised your own and didn’t receive a wage you were some kind of idiot who accepted the yoke of slavery. Everything was presented as a competition with men to prove that women could do anything that men can do. The traditionally feminine roles were discarded and derided. Which IMO isn’t very women friendly. It’s the rejection of traditional feminine roles that makes me see it as being, ‘as good as men.’ The correct answer is that generally there are gender differences but that they don’t correlate to the individual level.
You don’t think it’s so deeply attached to biology? That’s simply incorrect. Gender is biological distinction, not a cultivated social role. I have a penis, you have a vagina. And there are some basic normal aspects that we define as masculine and feminine that have a high correlation to the mean for the gender. Certainly some people have different aspects, and in that sense transgenderism is correct. The hypothalamus and the genitalia might fit within different gender roles, but those sorts of deviations are outliers, they are not the norm. Mutilating your genitalia is not equal to changing your gender. We simply are not technologically advanced enough to alter gender roles at this time.
It’s pretty clear that Freudian Slit was not using “gender” as synonymous with “sex,” as most do not these days. You’re essentially arguing with the dictionary here.
It was clear to I guess everyone but you that Freudian Slit was responding directly to me. I am aware of the basic transgender doctrine and the difference between gender and sex thanks. But wishing your gender to be different doesn’t make it so. It’s a false dichotomy that has been setup. And this is one of the problems with the misandry of feminism and political correctness in general. They create these dualities in order to deny the average in favor of acceptance of the outliers. Rather than simply fighting for outlier acceptance. I think this works counter to the intended goal. Gender DOES have a biological component, and that’s what you are referring to as ‘sex’. I know it’s the standard dogma to deny gender’s biological component, but the standard dogma is incorrect.
Well, I think that a woman should have the right to have both of those choices respected. And I think most feminists today would agree. Granted, there are some who might not, but I personally think both a man and a woman should have the right to choose. Though to be honest, I think a man who decided to do the stay at home gig might be seen with a few more raised eyebrows than a woman.
Well, as Jimmy Chitwood points out, I meant gender as in psychological role. Sex is biological of course, but gender is more about culture and how we identify. There’s obviously more to the whole thing than just biology. When you find yourself attracted to a woman, do you have to check for a vagina before you decide she’s female?
Gender seems to entail so much more. I’m not an expert on the subject by any means but I do find it fascinating how people manage to play with it and experiment with it. And I’m not even talking about changing genitals. I’m talking about people like drag queens who through the way they walk and carry themselves and through dress, make up, etc. can perform femininity. Some are more convincing than others, and yeah, people are going to point out that a drag queen’s role isn’t to “pass” as female necessarily…but my point is that so much of what we see as associated with masculinity or femininity is cultural. It’s kind of like a costume we can try on. There’s really no one thing that makes you masculine or feminine. But, IMO, it’s fascinating to look at all the people who play with the idea of what makes us masculine/feminine.
Sentence two in post #38 and what follows it, not to mention your statement that gender is “not a cultivated social role,” are contradictory.