Misogynism

I already told you where I got my information. A few simple Google searches turns up quite a few articles and studies about this. As far as men and women being inherently good at certain jobs, that's just not true. Which jobs are women inherently better at and why? Which ones are men inherently better at and why?

If we believe that women and men are currently in the jobs they're better at, then women are inherently better teachers, day care providers, secretaries, etc. while men are inherently better engineers, IT workers, video game designers, administrators, executives, managers, etc. What is it that makes men better at those jobs?

Just because we had gender roles in the past doesn't mean we still should. Gender is learned. Gender has to do with personality, upbringing, interests, etc. Not every male is masculine, wants to grill and drive fast cars and be an engineer, yet those are masculine gender roles. Not every woman wants to bake, clean the house, take care of the kids, and be an elementary school teacher, yet those are feminine gender roles. They don't work though. There is too much of a variety of people under each category for the majority of people to fit into one of those boxes. So why do we insist on sticking with the old gender roles?

In the video I posted ages agao of edwina currie, she made perfect sense, showed a couple of facts (note that edwina currie is a successful "older" woman who is not a feminist).

here it is again. wtach it fully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSrX2FJ-Q8


If feminists were like this, not only would I have nothing against them, but they wouldn't even have to call themselves anything particular as they would be just "normal people". In fact, they wouldnt be a group, there would be no "they".

Her entire argument was based on the same stereotype of feminism that I've already said just isn't true. She's talking about radical feminists, who make up a very small but loud part of the feminist movement and are more often than not shunned by the majority of other feminists. Since she wasn't actually arguing against the reality of feminism, and was only arguing against her own stereotypes of what a feminist is, I don't think there's much to respond to there. She might not call herself a feminist because she has this bad image of feminism, but she sounds like most feminists I know.

She is one of my very favorite people. Her channel is full of fantastic.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Her entire argument was based on the same stereotype of feminism that I've already said just isn't true. She's talking about radical feminists, who make up a very small but loud part of the feminist movement and are more often than not shunned by the majority of other feminists.

thats kind of too bad. we can clearly see these days the rise of radicalism in many forums shouting over calmer, more moderate voices. for example, i dont think that the entire republican party has gone off the deep end, but unfortunately the tea party radicals within it sure make it seem that way. the same goes for radical islam becoming seen as the norm, as representative of the entire religion, when they surely only make up a sliver of the total. thats too bad, cuz the entire religion is now vilified in this country, largely due to the actions of 19 men over a decade ago.

perception is 9/10ths of reality. and unfortunately, the term feminist has largely been associated with the radicals within said movement for some time now.

I admit I was wrong in my argument. I can speak for myself but my experience doesn't provide the facts as far as the rest of the men out there.

Perhaps because I have so many strong, intelligent women in my life I have a harder time recognizing the larger problem and I definitely shouldn't be in the habit of ignoring evidence that doesn't agree with me. My apologies Abhaya.

Just about every movement tends to be associated with its radicals. That's why it's up to intelligent people to be able to look past that and see the truth.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Just about every movement tends to be associated with its radicals. That's why it's up to intelligent people to be able to look past that and see the truth.

It only takes a handful of people to ruin something for the group Abhaya, and most people do not have the mental capacity nor the desire to weed out the true nature of something, when a doppleganger of it screams louder than the original group who is crying out against it.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Just about every movement tends to be associated with its radicals. That's why it's up to intelligent people to be able to look past that and see the truth.

the clear implication here is that those who don t 'look past and see the truth' are unintelligent.

what truth?

i already said that 'truth' and 'reality' are subjective. this is pretty much indisputable. so to those listening to a group claiming to be from group x shout ridiculous, hateful arguments about how evil and repressive is group y, and a few other, quieter members of group x say to group y 'oh, they're not with us, never mind them', those quiet voices usually get drowned out.

this phenomena is not isolated to feminism. the two examples i used previously are prime examples of the phenomena writ large.

But then what is the solution? You can't just change the name of your group every time you get some radicals ruining things. You would quickly run out of names for your group. You have to just keep pushing through and telling people as much as possible that your group does not condone the ideas of those few radicals. I think the majority of people here are probably intelligent enough to be able to see past the radicals. I would think politicians should be able to as well, though maybe not.