Hey, that doesn’t even work you’re being raped. 11-year-old girls are still being taught to yell ‘Fire!’
Zoe,
I knew this sounded familiar so I did a little searching. It appears as if you have tried this before. I followed up with this post, but you never came back. Would you like to respond now? I would have quoted it, but the board doesn’t allow nested quotes so you can’t see what my responses are to anyway. The above links were originally posted in this thread.
I’m a man and a feminist.
I’d like to point something out: A fairly high number of people in this thread have identified as feminists. Not one of those people (as far as I can tell, from evidence either in this thread or other things I’ve noticed about their postings on the SDMB over time) espouses beliefs along the “all heterosexual sex is rape” lines. And the SDMB is (as is often pointed out) a left-leaning board. Does anyone here support unisex public bathrooms? People who honestly associate feminists (in anything other than fringe numbers) with those negative stereotypes either (a) get all their information from Rush Limbaugh, or (b) made up their mind based on the outspoken radical feminist minority in college, and haven’t bothered to notice how rare attitudes like that are in the real world.
One other comment in general: I’m a bit leery of talk about “objectifying” women. I like to look at pretty women. If I see a pretty woman on the street, I will notice this. Rumors persist that I might, on extremely rare occasions, avail myself of various internet-based resources to look at pictures of attractive women in various states of undress, engaged in perverse acts. I even (gasp) think that fit women are more physically attractive than overweight women. None of that means that I don’t also find intelligence in women attractive and important. In fact, it’s FAR more important than physical looks. When I’m reading the SDMB and some woman says that she kicks as at Scrabble, I’m far more likely to (figurately) sit up and take notice than if she describes her physical traits in some flattering fashion.
Follow-up comment. For people who believe in equality but want to distance themselves from radical crazy-dumb-feminism, there are more options than either (1) identifying as a feminist, or (2) not identifying as a feminist. I mean, if someone says to you “so, what is your general philosophy”, you are certainly not required to immediately say either “I’m a feminist” or “I’m certainly not a feminist”. And if someone asks you if you’re a feminist, you are free to say “I am, in that I believe in equal opportunity for everyone regardless of gender”, or words to that effect.
If someone says to you “so, are you a feminist, YES OR NO, NO QUALIFIERS OR ADDENDA!!!”, then that person is an idiot and you should ignore them.
Are you kidding? I ask that in all seriousness because I can’t wrap my head around this statement (perhaps in your view because I’m female?). You’ve probably already explained this, but what is it about feminity that you see as negative? And why? Or are you just wooshing us?
I don’t think that women are more prone to hysterical behavior than men or are somehow less rational. Is it the potential organization of government that you see as being a problem or just women overall?
As a somewhat facetious side note, I’ve never understood why women were so marginalized yet somehow trusted with raising children. If we can’t be trusted to run a country, how on earth can we be trusted to raise future leaders without negatively influencing them? It doesn’t make sense. If I think someone is prone to fits of hysteria, there’s no way in hell I’m going to hand my kid over to them.
Zoe, I’m not asking this to be a jerk, but do you have kids?
Most small children prefer their moms vs. their dads for the first couple of years, particularly when they’re sick. My son is 15 months old and less dependent upon me than earlier; however, when he was smaller, he would scream and refuse to drink if anyone but me tried to comfort him or get liquids into him while ill. It just made sense for me to take care of him if he was sick because he was more likely to relax and get better faster.
Now that my son is older and responds more to his dad as well as me, it’s a lot easier and I agree that whenever possible he should contribute just as much to childcare as I do; however, from what I’ve read and what I’ve experienced, babies are hardwired to be a lot more dependent upon their moms when they’re small. Carrying someone around inside you for 10 months then nursing them for however long creates a very strong bond - one that my husband (or any other man) would have a very, very hard time duplicating.
I have never considered my work less important than my husband’s. And I don’t think he has, either. But for the first year of my son’s life I was just more physically capable of comforting him, which probably made him get better faster than he would have had he been screaming his head off and refusing liquids with his dad. I’m fortunate to work somewhere that allows me to work from home if necessary, so my performance has never suffered from my son being ill, but when he was younger, it just didn’t make sense for me not to take care of him if he were sick. Now he’s older and more responsive to others besides me so I can agree with you that someone besides me should take more responsibility, but before it just wasn’t practicable.
FWIW, I’m NOT arguing against women’s rights - I’m very strongly in favor of equal opportunities. But taking advantage of such opportunities is easier when kids aren’t involved. Yeah, I could have insisted his dad take him when he was sick and that would have been great - for me. But not for my son.
And yet my brother-in-law, who has cared for their daughter almost single-handedly since the initial maternity leave, hasn’t had any unusual problems with that. (Other than problems with stupid people in their rural area assuming that he can’t properly care for his child, or must be abducting her, or something. :rolleyes: )
People who adopt babies manage to bond with them.
Et cetera.
Sorry, but I think much of the “hardwiring” is on the mom’s side, not the baby’s. And I think a lot of it is cultural, not inherent.
You’re right - what I posted earlier was a broad generalization and I’m looking for cites to better back that up than my own (sometimes faulty) reasoning. However, it makes sense - TO ME - that since women are equipped with the ability to carry a kid around for 10 months, to feed the kid for a few years after birth, etc., that the child would be hardwired to depend more on the mother than on anyone else. That is clearly going to be superseded in many cases - adoption being one of them. So in that sense I think that you’re right that part of a baby’s dependence on it’s mother is cultural. Still, I’m having trouble believing that the baby wouldn’t be at least somewhat biologically hardwired to have a strong bond with its mother if she’s physically the one best equipped to care for it.
In other words, it makes sense to me - adoption and other cases notwithstanding - that women, who have evolved to have uteruses, breasts and the hormones that aid in carrying, delivering and feeding children, would have also evolved to have a stronger interest biologically and culturally in any children they may have. And that similarly humans would have evolved to have a stronger dependence on their moms, at least for the first years of their lives, because their moms are equipped to carry, deliver and feed them.
I suspect that the above is culture and biology acting together instead of just one acting by itself and I’m going to see if I can find some cites to help back that up. But maybe that would be a good offshoot thread, since it seems to be deviating from the OP.
Zoe: Do you think that the same number of men and women should be in prison?
You know, I might just go start that thread if someone hasn’t done it already. I recall reading (and will try to find the book) about a tribe where the gender roles were completely reversed- the men took care of the children and homes, and the women were responsible for hunting, fighting, etc.
I suppose what you would have to ask would be why this didn’t become the successful and default model for all of humanity, and why, if there had to be a gender bias, it was almost always the same way around.
Argh! I just got so busy at work, I forgot to look up those cites! Sorry about that - I had run into several articles on on sociobiology somewhere on the 'net…I’ll have to find it again. If you do post that thread, I can put the cites there instead of here if you like.
And whether I’m right, wrong or just plain crazy, I’m really enjoying this discussion!
Sounds like Margaret Mead’s Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies.
And sorry, what exactly is so horrible about Sweden? The high standard of living? I’m trying to figure out how women ruined that particular country – did a government worker menstruate all over some important documents or something?
Hee hee. Good one!
This is true, but it would be odd if someone said, "I’m in favor of lower taxes, less goverment regulation, a stronger military and freer trade, but I’m no Republican. Anyway it would be odd if we had a different president.
I would simply figure that it was suited to that environment. Or maybe it wasn’t, particularly, and was kept in place by tradition. I should disclose that I haven’t brought down a megalocerous with my atl-atl in quite some time.
This thread is making me horny. :eek:
It occurs to me Zoe, that you never came back and gave me my grade for your little game of “Are You More Feminist Than A 5th Grader?”
I’m still waiting, or has “THE MAN” been keeping you away from the computer in some sort of sexist show of dominance?
No wait, you just posted a few minutes ago, so I guess that’s not it.
Well I’m gay.
no, I’m not homosexual, just happy to post this. A little confusing no?
Slacker. You’ll lose your throwing arm if you don’t keep it in trim. Anyway, yes, and that was much my point; if gender roles were only an artificial social construct, you’d expect them to be flipped more often if they worked just as well the other way around.
Of course, you know your baby’s situation as no one else can, but I would be very surprised if you are correct about babies as a whole being hardwired. That is the assumption that many people make. I did study developmental psychology in graduate school and I am unaware of it. But I am open to being reeducated if you find recent studies. (I did not have children of my own, but I did have four grandbabies!)
dgrdfd, if those statistics are accurate and from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, then you will need to show where they are available at that site and not a site that merely quotes them. Let’s see the actual government numbers at a government site. But I was thinking that someone else responded to you. Maybe not.
Justin Bailey, I regret that you failed to notice that most teachers K-12 are female and most principals are men. But then you were in school for only 12 or 13 years and I was in school for 40 years and had a better chance to observe more schools and larger congregations of teachers at state education association meetings and so forth. I will see if I can scratch up some national statistics. I spoke only of principals, not assistant principals. I’m talking about the head of a school.
Let’s see. Being a man was likely one of the things that helped your initial application to library school, but you can’t see discrimination. Hmm.
You are surrounded by women all day. All five of your supervisors have been female. Do most men not like books? Do they not like to read? Do they not like quiet rooms? What is it about library science that keeps so many men from applying? Is it the low pay scale? Why is it that librarians are paid less than someone with a business degree?
And you know full well that I didn’t say a word about the town supervisor or the county executive. (That last one usually means secretary anyway.) It’s the mayor’s job that almost always falls to a man. No clairvoyance needed. That’s the point.
Apparently, you are blind and a little dense. When you have to make up arguments for the other side that aren’t there (as in: “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” when something doesn’t go your way), you show that you have no argument.
Tom, I am aware that women are frequently principals in elementary schools, but that changes once they get to the high school level. That in itself is telling. TPTB don’t want women in charge of sports programs is part of it. And there is still a little of “the good old boy” system at work here. Women are promoted to supervisory positions (both at the local and state levels) but they are not very likely to become Directors of Schools. Metro-Nashville School System has never had a female Director of Schools although it was offered to one once.
I did not bring up salaries in schools at all. They are often negotiated by educational associations or unions and would apply to all teachers and not just individuals. I am unfamiliar with those systems which don’t follow this pattern or with systems which distinguish between elementary and high school salary schedules. My complaint is that the higher paying jobs go to men more often than women.