-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Males who identify as being feminists
- Thread starter Zekes!
- Start date
- Status
The fact that there's now a four page discussion about what being feminist means pretty much solidifies my view on the matter.
To hell with all these labels. All of them. Feminist, humanist, capitalist, socialist... they're just gross oversimplifications of extremely complex matters. I'd rather not leave it up to whomever I'm talking to, to guess what kind of capitalist/humanist/feminst I am.
I am for equal rights. Try to misinterpret that!
To hell with all these labels. All of them. Feminist, humanist, capitalist, socialist... they're just gross oversimplifications of extremely complex matters. I'd rather not leave it up to whomever I'm talking to, to guess what kind of capitalist/humanist/feminst I am.
I am for equal rights. Try to misinterpret that!
Some people just don't like labels. Whatever. Just don't get angry when others take on labels and I won't get angry when you ignore them. Similar debate occurs in the atheist movement concerning the definition of agnostic, atheist, theist, agnostic-atheist etc. I just say who gives a shit. What matters is what you actually state. The substance.
First, my problem is I have no trust in most feminist caring about anything beyond what they typically taken action on. This idea that feminism cares about all equally and we just happen to focus on women is b.s. They don't do anything to add evidence to that claim,but instead we get things like your "why is a generation of men falling behind a worse thing than women not showing as much of an interest in certain as the few men who do make do?" as if that is a serious question.
If you are going to talk about caring for everyone, do something to prove it. Until then yeah the people who do nothing but talk are the bad guys. Just like the feminists who did nothing but talk about caring for poor women or women of color during the 60's and 70's but did shit all in the end.
And if you seriously don't know why men failing at a higher rate of women is a bigger problem than women choosing to be successful in non-stem fields, let me spell it out. Our country is heading towards a more information and skill based economy. Leaving boys, who later become men behind will be a huge drag on our economy and culture, you know kind of like how it was when women were in a similar position. The focus on women entering enough STEM fields is just another example of misaligned priories at best, and at worst bureaucrats deciding that they should push people into certain fields, short changing everyone else and ignoring individual choice. Women are choosing to do something else, and feminists who see everything as a gender and misandry issue can't stand it.
HarryHengst
Member
Pretty easy, see this guy who also thinks he is for equal rights but apparently most women do not:
Bowling Pin
Member
Why do feminists call you a misogynist asshole?
He thinks girls who cosplay as slave leia are attractive.
FeedMeAStrayCat
Member
SIMON PEGG POSTS HERE?!?!!?!??!?!?!?! OMG I'll go gay for him
JessicaPadkin
Member
Well... a lot of men aren't happy with the pressure on them to be powerful and financially successful above all else, really. The responsibility of being 'important', of having to adhere to the expectations of the male gender role, even drives some men to suicide. More female CEOs/high earners could ease the pressure on men and avoid forcing them into a lifestyle that they don't really want. I'm seeing more and more hetero couples where the man has more freedom (to, for example, quit a crappy job that he hates) than he would otherwise, because his female partner earns enough to support him. So there's a benefit for men if society allowed more women to become powerful.
I would also guess that the suicide problem could be partly attributed to the fact that men are less likely to seek help, because 'real men' aren't encouraged to show/admit weakness. The whole "men = strong, women = weak, don't be a PUSSY" thing is obviously not that helpful to women either.
kurtrussell
Banned
Okay. This post will offer a potentially thorny opinion and is either going to make or break me. Try to take it in the spirit it was intended, GAF.
Is it possible that the reason that there is this apparent underlying thought running throughout society that different genders are better suited to different jobs is not actually because of brothers keeping sisters down, and instead maybe more to do with the fact that, I dunno, the sexes are essentially different?
My S.O. is a developmental educational psychologist. She has an expression she uses frequently "God! Boys are so autistic!". By this, she doesn't literally mean that every boy she works with is autistic, but rather that the majority of boys she deals with exhibits symptoms that fall somewhere on the autism scale.
Example: Give a boy and a girl a toy cooker to play with. The boy will most likely obsess over the small details: The dials, the buttons, the colour etc etc and the girl will focus on how she can use the toy in a way that benefits others - "I'd like to bake my mum a cake". Please note: This is not a black and white, concrete generalisation, but on average, a pretty common scenario.
Quite simply: Male brains are wired differently to female brains. It is this wiring that I believe gives the different sexes more of an aptitude towards certain career paths. That's not to say that women can't work in roles that are mostly male dominated and vice versa, but I think in the real world, the majority of people work in the jobs they do because of an aptitude and predilection towards that role.
So yeah: there's a disparity. Some jobs seem to be more suited to the tendencies of men, and some jobs seem to be more suited to the tendencies of women. That's not sexism, it's biology.
Is it possible that the reason that there is this apparent underlying thought running throughout society that different genders are better suited to different jobs is not actually because of brothers keeping sisters down, and instead maybe more to do with the fact that, I dunno, the sexes are essentially different?
My S.O. is a developmental educational psychologist. She has an expression she uses frequently "God! Boys are so autistic!". By this, she doesn't literally mean that every boy she works with is autistic, but rather that the majority of boys she deals with exhibits symptoms that fall somewhere on the autism scale.
Example: Give a boy and a girl a toy cooker to play with. The boy will most likely obsess over the small details: The dials, the buttons, the colour etc etc and the girl will focus on how she can use the toy in a way that benefits others - "I'd like to bake my mum a cake". Please note: This is not a black and white, concrete generalisation, but on average, a pretty common scenario.
Quite simply: Male brains are wired differently to female brains. It is this wiring that I believe gives the different sexes more of an aptitude towards certain career paths. That's not to say that women can't work in roles that are mostly male dominated and vice versa, but I think in the real world, the majority of people work in the jobs they do because of an aptitude and predilection towards that role.
So yeah: there's a disparity. Some jobs seem to be more suited to the tendencies of men, and some jobs seem to be more suited to the tendencies of women. That's not sexism, it's biology.
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Yeah, society telling you over and over what you should like has nothing at all to do with it.
Preferences are not the same as abilities. I think the goal should be to enable any person to choose any career they have aptitude for, regardless of their other personal attributes, but to say the brain is the same between genders is foolish.
The problem is that many times when someone says this one the net comments or in a blog it goes like: 'So women have these and these problems in work life. But what about the men! We have problems too!' It's a pattern that repeats and repeats. People seem to be unable to admit that the other sex might have more problems in some area, and they just have to try and combine their own problems there.
It's like saying 'why waste time taking care of problem X when there's starving people in Africa'.
I'm not saying that's you, either, but it's something that happens.
neither does it have *everything* to do with it, which often feels like the argument given by some sides. We are a mix of nature and nurture, I just wish people wouldn't entirely ignore the nature part.
I believe women should be treated as equals to men. I don't think they should be treated as though they are the same.
kurtrussell
Banned
Actually no. But my highly qualified professional S.O. has a large part in making me believe that.
travisbickle
Member
HarryHengst
Member
There really is no way to prove that the brain is what drives interests and abilities, because we cant remove children from society and its influences.
And it would be better to say that the brain is different between individuals, because genders is way too big a group.
Last year when I studied psychology I recall reading that who we turn out to be is influenced both by heritage (genes) and environment.
I think the numbers were 50/50.
Who'd have thought the answer wasn't clear cut.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
The thing is, there's a lot more to feminism than just "equal pay". It's about expected and learned behavior, how to be and act, what to think and more. We're products of our surroundings and we act accordingly to what we've experienced but people never question these notions of how to be and why it's that way.
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Funnily enough a whole lot of people quoting me seem to think I said it has everything to do with it.
Go figure.
kurtrussell
Banned
If you hadn't read my post correctly, I can see how you might interpret it as that. But no actually:
"Get back to wherever it is you gravitate towards and do whatever it is you have an aptitude to do"
Genders is way too big a group? I think you need to investigate how science and statistics work. Sorry if that sounds patronising.
travisbickle
Member
You said genders were hard-wired to enjoy certain things, and hard-wired to be competent at certain tasks: Can you be more specific on this? because I can't see anything beyond "boys like fixing stuff, girls like cooking for people ... and they're good at it"
HarryHengst
Member
So you still want a different set of rules for each gender?
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
"Which just so happens to be the kitchen"
That's not what he said at all.
kurtrussell
Banned
No, I said that the differences between male brains and female brains likely influence what we choose to do in life, and by extension influence our choice in career.
Biology explains the pay gap?
Huh, maybe I should take a biology course, cause I always thought it was due to gender inequality.
kurtrussell
Banned
You sound like you've heard that once or twice in your life before. Is that why you're so vociferous?
WTF.. I don't even...
Where did you get the pay gap from? I was trying to explain the reasoning behind society's perception of what constitutes a "male job" and a "female job". Not what they get paid.
Aren't all (or at least most of) the greatest chefs male?
Sure, I guess I am.
Which probably has to do with the politics of the professional kitchen more than anything (at least, that's my guess).
Which probably has to do with the politics of the professional kitchen more than anything (at least, that's my guess).
HarryHengst
Member
Which is as much based on society and current trends as 'biology'. Teacher was seen as a male job for centuries, but is now considered a womens job. Pink was a color for boys until WWII, now its for girls.
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Well aren't you clever.
Yeah. It's just a jab at the "boys like the dials and buttons, girls like cooking for other people, because of BIOLOGY" argument.
D.Lo
Member
Agree.
I remember hearing a discussion programme on the radio, maybe a year ago, between some people--I can't remember who everyone was, but I remember Simon Baron-Cohen was there, the guy who does lots of research into autism.
Anyway so one of the guys was on there and he was saying about how there are innate differences and how you see different patterns of word usage from men and women and how women are much more sociable and spend more time on the phone and use certain words more.
And then one of the other people on the panel, who was a linguist, said that actually they had done studies on that and they had found no differences. Word use between men and women is basically identical.
Obviously I'm not saying that you can discount all studies that claim to have found a gender different out of hand. But I do think that they shouldn't be used as be-all end-all indicators of some underlying differences.
I mean, it's a pretty reasonable inference that there are neurophysical differences between men and women. But given our present state of knowledge of cognition in general, I think we should avoid drawing serious, society-affecting decisions from disputed studies. In any case, you need a further argument to license building society around that. 'Because it's natural' or 'because our brains are different' is not that argument.
Anyway so one of the guys was on there and he was saying about how there are innate differences and how you see different patterns of word usage from men and women and how women are much more sociable and spend more time on the phone and use certain words more.
And then one of the other people on the panel, who was a linguist, said that actually they had done studies on that and they had found no differences. Word use between men and women is basically identical.
Obviously I'm not saying that you can discount all studies that claim to have found a gender different out of hand. But I do think that they shouldn't be used as be-all end-all indicators of some underlying differences.
I mean, it's a pretty reasonable inference that there are neurophysical differences between men and women. But given our present state of knowledge of cognition in general, I think we should avoid drawing serious, society-affecting decisions from disputed studies. In any case, you need a further argument to license building society around that. 'Because it's natural' or 'because our brains are different' is not that argument.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Oh come on.
Women's place is society is not so easily determined by biological differences. Whatever pop psychology platitudes you spout, there are real problems with the way women are treated in the workforce and they include exclusion and pay reduction based on your 'biology'. I put biology there in quotes because the exclusion and pay gap isn't caused by some inherent difference between little boys and little girls, it's caused by men not wanting to pay women the same for the same job.
If you think that everyone should be treated equally, have a chance in life and acknowledge that they currently aren't then you're a socialist.
See what I did there?
travisbickle
Member
You've decided to drop the word "aptitude", that word dramatically changes what you said originally to what you are saying now.
Funny because your statement is intensionally false but extensionally true.
HarryHengst
Member
Socialist and feminist, two things everyone should be.
You obviously dont have kids.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
*wakes up*
*sees thread title*
*skims first few pages*
*goes back to bed*
*sees thread title*
*skims first few pages*
*goes back to bed*
Having kids doesn't have anything to do with it. Kids pick up information from a very young age. The fact of the matter is that at the turn of the 20th century, colour coding by gender for children was the opposite of what it is now. Pink was the boy colour and blue was the girl colour.
I have a son and he loves My Little Pony and Super Dinosaur.
He shits all over your biology.
- Status