Ultra-Feminist Propaganda

[Ladna]

Doom Juan said:

That comment just reeks of ultra-feminist propaganda with an obvious agenda behind it, and is utterly one-sided.

Men are in power? What does that even mean? Let us take the example of women tennis players: I recall them complaining that they were being paid less than men - but men played 5 sets, and women played only 3 so surely men should get paid more. But female players argued that they were just as popular as male players and should get the same money. So why not reduce men's tennis so that they played 3 sets, and then pay both sexes equally?

But women didn't suggest that. They just argued to be paid the same. What this shows me is that women are complaining about a situation not really to achieve fairness, but instead achieve a better deal for themselves. Now men and women do get the same pay at Wimbledon: "equality has finally caught up with the home of British tennis" was the way one newspaper source put it.

But if this is equality, why do men have to worker harder for the same reward? Why is it ok to discriminate against men in the amount of work that they must do, but not ok to discriminate in the amount they are paid?

And on a side note, I recall Duke Nukem 3D having tortured women in it - and the ability to kill them if you so decided, and I find it odd that anyone would moan about something so trivial in a doom wad of ALL things in 2012.

I thought I'd try and move this thread of conversation to an actual separate thread. If this is a bad place for it I apologize, I don't really know how Doomworld works.

What does ultra-feminist propaganda mean? Let's look at who might put forward this propaganda.

Who controls the majority of publishing houses in the western world: men
Who controls the majority of newspapers and magazines in the western world: men
Who controls the majority of television broadcast organizations in the western world: men
Who controls the majority of radio broadcast organizations in the western world: men

Are there other propaganda outlets I'm unaware of that are just lousy with women? Please point me to them, I like girls, especially ones that are articulate, well-read and confident.

I can also tell you what it means for men to be in power, and it really doesn't have shit to do with sports (although we also dominate there as well).

Men are the vast majority of presidents, premiers, and prime ministers (heads of state)
Men are the vast majority of representatives - i.e. congresspeople, senators, MPs, etc.
Men are the vast majority of ambassadors
Men are the vast majority of generals and otherwise ranking military personnel
Men are the vast majority of college professors
Men are the vast majority of published authors
Men are the vast majority of journalists
Men are the vast majority of scientists and engineers

I seriously don't understand anyone who questions whether or not men are in charge. This is the least we've been in charge in history, and we're overwhelmingly, obviously in charge.

Doom Juan said:

I've not heard a single utterance that has refuted anything I've said, but rather a futile collective or arguments that promote unfairness for it's own sake, on account that women apparently are 'oppressed' and deserve a recompense via more privilege at the behest of men.

I don't believe that men and women are unequal; history is littered with numerous examples that suggest otherwise, but I certainly would never give a give a woman equal pay for half a days work purely because she 'demanded' it on account of unfairness when she did half the work.

Equality is either total, or it is merely a sham.

Let me give you some examples that suggest that men and women are unequal, just from the last couple centuries in the US:
- Slave women were raped to produce more slaves for free; they were referred to as "breeders"
- It has only recently been possible for husbands to rape their wives, as women had no legal right to sexual sovereignty
- Women have only recently been admitted to high-level educational institutions
- Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920
- Women were property, and had practically no legal protections
- Women continue to be paid less for equal work
- Health care plans cover Viagra, but not birth control

It's also worth saying that stuff like this is relatively benign compared to the rest of history. Just look at the track record in the middle and far east for way worse treatment of women.

I want to address the idea that equal pay for equal work (for women) is ultra-feminist. There's exactly one occupation for which women receive equal or higher compensation than men, and that's BEING A NANNY. Even male nurses get paid more, and no one can say female nurses are lazy.

You can make an argument that women take maternity leave. I would respond that it's only fair, seeing as they're PERPETUATING THE EXISTENCE OF THE HUMAN RACE. Thanks women! You can make an argument that women tend to prioritize their family over their career. I would argue that that issue is more complicated than you think (other people making money, other people taking care of kids, etc. etc. etc.).

It's a convenient thing to say that "equality is either total, or it is merely a sham". Total equality is impossible, if for no other reason than equality is fundamentally subjective.

Doom Juan said:

They should be paid less, and there's nothing remotely misogynist about expecting fair pay for a fair amount of work done. Do women automatically get a free pass on account that they are allegedly 'oppressed'? I find the argument that depictions of tortured women are more degrading to women because they are allegedly 'oppressed' complete and utter bullshit, and I merely used the silly Wimbledon example to highlight how this alleged oppression is merely a cheap political gimmick often employed by groups with a sinister agenda.

Another way of looking at it,would be that it's ok to depict men being tortured but not ok when it involves women? What gives them special privilege exactly?

No one is arguing that women should be paid more for less work. If a man is a UPS driver and a woman is a UPS driver, they should paid on the same basis. As it is now, if the male UPS driver makes $10/hr., the female driver makes $7. And before you quibble about the numbers, it has nothing to do with vacation or benefits. The numbers are actually adjusted for that already, if you don't adjust it's more like $10 to $5.

If you want to talk about a sinister agenda (and I'm gonna assume you're an American here), blame Republicans for hammering this issue like a wedge into the electorate to try and corner the disenchanted white male vote. It's no coincidence that Democrats haven't won that demographic in decades, even though Republican policies have been disastrous for them (and everybody else). I've said it before and I'll say it again here, electorates tend to get the leaders they deserve.

If you want to argue the point that men/women torture point, I'll argue that the history of men is nothing like the history of women, specifically the history of sexual abuse and subjugation. You can take issue with that, but I'll point out that there's a disgusting, cruel difference between male and female "circumcision". What the fuck, by the way.

Doom Juan said:

Look at this article I found.

That article is trash. Just this part completely discredits it: "Ever since the late Sixties, it has been an incontestable article of faith in the feminist creed that men are lazy, slobbish, barbaric, barely civilisable and incapable of switching on the vacuum cleaner without breaking it – and eternal shame on Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Miller for boasting about the fact that he lives up to that mould-encrusted cliché.". What a goddamn load of bullshit. I'm a feminist and I don't believe anything of the sort.

EDIT:

I should also say I agree with everything Gez said in the other thread. I'll even add to it and say that men are better athletes when it comes to pure physicality (strength, endurance, etc.) and there are all kinds of compensations built into women's sports, including smaller balls, smaller courts, etc. etc. It doesn't mean they're not working just as hard (during the game and during training), or that any woman from the WNBA couldn't pound any of us silly on the court. Gez also makes a good point about the sexualization of female tennis players, very few other sports are like that and it's just fucked up. Then again, sports are entertainment, and players/organizations are paid based on proceeds, and if football players are volunteering to be crippled mentally and physically after a handful of years on the field, volunteering to wear a revealing uniform doesn't seem like the worst thing ever. I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying sports aren't really the best examples of progressivism and equality.

[Technician]

Ladna said:

If you want to argue the point that men/women torture point, I'll argue that the history of men is nothing like the history of women, specifically the history of sexual abuse and subjugation. You can take issue with that, but I'll point out that there's a disgusting, cruel difference between male and female "circumcision". What the fuck, by the way.

I'd like to know how clitoridectomy got entwined with the word circumcision when it means, by definition, the removal of the foreskin from the glans.

At least you've make an argument rather than simply stating "check your privilege." Props.

[Ladna]

I seriously don't know. My instinct is that it's in the proud tradition of euphemizing something horrible. "Oh, it's just circumcision, that's not that bad". But ultimately I don't know about the origin of the term.

I'll also use this opportunity to seize on the word "privilege". Sure relative to women and on average men are privileged, in the same way that relative to minorities and on average whites are privileged (again in the US). But it's also true that 1 in 4 children in the US are affected by hunger. The largest impoverished and illiterate population in the US is white. Every year thousands of students decide not to go to college because they simply can't afford it. The chief cause of bankruptcy (before the advent of the Great Recession) was health care crisis (*).

I don't want to get lost in the idea of relative privilege. Yes, white men still have significant privilege. But there is really no area we can't do better in. It makes no sense to allow kids to drop out (except those with religious reasons, like the Amish) of high school, semesters and summer break are stupid, and it's overall unacceptable that high schools suck so hard. The most common causes of death for Americans are heart disease, cancer, lung disease, and strokes - practically all of which go away if we outlaw smoking, tax the shit out of terrible food, and stop demonizing the EPA. It's pathetic and embarrassing that 1 in 4 American children are affected by hunger, especially when we pay farmers to destroy/withhold crops. It's just silly that technological advances in medicine and science are being held hostage by insane, reactionary, fundamentalists.

Which party is to blame for all of this? That's right, Republicans. Apparently the market is supposed to magically prevent people from selling poisons. "Nobody will buy something that gives them cancer!" BAHAHAHAHAH OK. Time for government everyone. Republicans are wary of an educated populace because educated Americans tend to be (by like 30 points) be Democrats. Republicans don't want to outlaw smoking or tax shitty food because of the tobacco and corn lobbies. Republicans don't want to lower farm subsidies because of the rural farm lobby (the big red wasteland in the middle of the US). The family farmer went away with the dust bowl by the way, agriculture in the US is almost entirely corporatized. Republicans constantly advance anti-science legislation, and constantly try to choke the life out of science/technology investment, all the while arguing that the private sector can take care of innovation itself. Here I'd like to remind people that when the government invests in science & technology we get stuff like radio, the microwave, stealth bombers and the internet. When private industry takes over, we get insanely overpriced prescription drugs and Suburbans.

And thanks for the props :).

* We'll see if the ACA does anything to mitigate this. Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefit) also has a private exchange for prescription drug insurance, and it hasn't done shit to contain costs, and that's the ACA's (Obamacare's) chief cost control. That's right, another terrible, failed Republican idea. But I hope it works better.

[JadedLexi]

O_O I'm uh.. at a loss for words here. If I ever see a discussion like this again I'll point someone to this thread. lol.

[Ladna]

Haha. I updated the 1st post to refer to Shadowman's Inquisitor WAD discussion thread, maybe it wasn't obvious.

[Joshy]

Hurray, feminism. Not really wanting to get into the crux of things here or else I'd start writing essays, but the term 'ultra-feminism' seems to me to be basically a way of generating some sort of antagonistic reversal. Granted there are overly passionate feminists, but the issue is people rarely know the origin of 'feminism'. So it has become a rhetorical weapon for patriarchal conservatives: Men 'victimise' themselves at the hands of 'power-thirsty women'. It is fairly common to see men utilise victim-mentalities to belittle the issues women go through (WHAT ABOUT US, MEN?11!11), so often their causes are shrugged off.

More particularly, it is quite common for people to degrade 'feminism' and relevant words like 'misogynist', 'sexism' as irrational and emotional weapons, when they are actually productive critical theory concepts questioning disproportionate power/recognitions in society. It'll be a long time before there'll ever be equality, considering the amount of irrational and deluded conservative people we have on this planet.

As for the tennis scenario, as I myself used to be a die-hard player, it would be nice to see women play 5 sets in Grand Slams. Best of 3 sets is too short IMO, and it would make it more interesting to see their abilities tested in the long run. How do we know they can do it if they've never done it, or they 'think' they cannot do it? We impose too much 'biological facts/restrictions' on them. I would bet there are heaps of women who'd outrun/play me physically..

EDIT: I couldn't really care about how much they earn, it's cool they've reduced the payment disparity, but it's hard enough for any tennis players to make a living. The costs hiring a tennis court, and equipments, coaching fees, and the time required to become an elite player are just fucking ridiculous now. No wonder I'm not playing much tennis anymore.. Packing on bit of weight too! :P

Annnnd, lastly, as for circumcision, from what I've read/studied, female circumcision is actually taboo in Western culture compared to male circumcision; people reading cases of FGM (female genital mutilation), particularly in African countries, elicit far stronger responses. Male circumcision themselves have been taken lightly because of tradition, and insubstantial cases made by influential medical institutions- 'eh, it's no skin off our noses' rhetoric.

So I am a little surprised people would consider female circumcision or FGM as something like male circumcision...

[Ladna]

- White Resentment

Senator Jim Webb of Virginia sums up white resentment pretty effectively and sympathetically, and largely I agree. White men haven't had an easy go of things either, we only recently got the 8 hour work day, 5 day work week, workers benefits, financial aid, etc. It sucks to eke out an existence as a blue-collar worker, all the while hearing stories about affirmative action, quotas, etc., as if white people have it made.

My advice to them, predictably, is to vote Democrat anyway :). Democrats are for a strong social safety net, they're for upward economic and social mobility, they're for labor standards and workers benefits, they're for tax penalties for companies who move jobs overseas, they're for health care as right, and they're for the right to organize (unions). Life sucks for white people almost singularly due to Republican policies enacted over a 30 year period.

- Language

This is something else Republicans do to try and appeal to the largely non-college electorate. I agree it's terrible, particularly because that road leads to a rejection of education, science and technology.

- Tennis

I agree. 5 sets for everyone. Let women wear shorts ffs (or whatever, really). How patriarchal is it to tell women, "I know you guys are weaker, so we'll only make you play 3 sets. We're so considerate."

- Female Circumcision

Yeah female circumcision isn't a western thing. From my limited googling it's primarily a middle-eastern/north-african practice. And I found out why it's called circumcision, it's because in some cases even the labia is removed. Other super horrible shit is also done, I'm actually so horrified I'm not gonna reproduce it here. The term itself was used by the "Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and in 1991 the WHO recommended its use to the United Nations" (Wikipedia).

I used the example specifically to point out that female oppression is a global, ancient, often full-on evil institution

[Kira]

The only scary feminist I can think of is Valerie Solanas. There are also dumb groups who do more harm than good to women like this (french news google-translated, sorry for the quality).

[Violator]

Woman make terrible leaders as they think with way too much emotion rather than logic I have found. Feminazi's don't do females any favours they just prove that woman can be sexist too.

[Ladna]

Yeah on my university campus is this extremely loud, obnoxious Christian evangelist. I'm pretty he's turned away more people from Christianity than he's attracted.

In fairness, Solanas was sexually abused, worked as a prostitute, and was mentally ill (schizophrenia). I guess she got her shit together after she shot Warhol, but I didn't read that far down her wiki page ;).

===

Violator said:

Woman make terrible leaders as they think with way too much emotion rather than logic I have found. Feminazi's don't do females any favours they just prove that woman can be sexist too.

No one's immune from acting emotionally, nor from making bad decisions. Famous bad decisions made by men include:
- The Crusades
- The Holocaust
- The Soviet Gulags
- The Iraq War (not to compare it to the Holocaust or the Gulags, but still a pretty horrible decision)
- Tony Parker cheating on Eva Longoria

Just saying.

Finally as K!r4 said above, every group of people has some crazy people. I'm sure there are some Men's Rights Advocates that want all women to be sex slaves. I think it would be better if we didn't come up with derogatory, sexist names for them (seriously, aggressive advocates for women's rights are the same as people who committed the first industrialized genocide?), but it's all sort of peripheral.

[Violator]

Feminazi's like other extremist groups promote their superiority rather than seek equality, a feminist will tell you everything woman can do better than men instead of legitimately seeking equality. I personally think both men and woman each have their separate important roles within society and we were made that way.

Those were all carried out by power crazed lunatics who didn't represent anything but power driven lunacy while hiding under the banner of diversion, I am still not sold on the whole holocaust thing yet as I cannot help to think history is being re-written to favour a select few inb4 NAZI!!, I'm not denying a Holocaust took place I can't help to think that it is being milked for profit and sympathy and the fact that it is illegal and a jailable offense to question it in multiple countries makes me question the agenda behind it

[Joshy]

Violator said:

Woman make terrible leaders as they think with way too much emotion rather than logic I have found. Feminazi's don't do females any favours they just prove that woman can be sexist too.

Actually even the most ordinary women, mostly non-feminists can be 'sexist' as well, so a little bit unfair there to just single out the overly-passionate feminists (there are always idiots and extremists everywhere you go). Talk to a 80 year old woman, good chance she'll say it's not 'natural' for a woman to be equal to a man in terms of hierarchy.

And I'd suggest to not claim females to be less logical and more overly 'emotional', that's a rather ignorant response in itself.

Feminazi's like other extremist groups promote their superiority rather than seek equality, a feminist will tell you everything woman can do better than men instead of legitimately seeking equality. I personally think both men and woman each have their separate important roles within society and we were made that way.

For what it's worth, they aren't exactly promoting their superiority, but rather, indicate that they are quite capable of achieving high physical and academic abilities beyond their imposed and self-imposed culturally-assigned biological inclination. Not to mention, it is very testing to just be able to speak out, and forced to swim against the tides, that you are more likely to become more 'extreme'. Considering the amount of idiots on this planet, you'd also have to be enunciating very clearly to get through thick heads.

Take this actual example of 'swimming against the tides': http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/kate-ellis-shut-down-on-qa/

[Ladna]

Actually, perhaps the most famous living feminist Gloria Steinem starts her lectures out with a single question.

"Do you believe that women are equal to men?"

Everyone answers "yes", because who doesn't?

Then she replies, "you're all feminists".

Feminism isn't about superiority, it's about equality.

Finally since you insist on the using the "Feminazi" term to describe even reasonable feminists, and are what appears to be a Holocaust denier, I can no longer take you seriously. If any of that's wrong feel free to correct me.

Oh OK, I read your post a little more carefully. I don't want to get into a whole Holocaust discussion, suffice it to say there are good reasons that Holocaust denial is banned in places like Germany.

With regard to prescribed roles, I don't disagree in principle but I do think it should be up to each individual to decide what their role is. I'm not about to tell a woman she can't be a basketball player just because she has 2 X chromosomes. That's up to her. Imagine how you would feel if someone told you you couldn't eat ice cream or buy scented candles because you're a man.

[Violator]

Joshy said:

And I'd suggest to not claim females to be less logical and more overly 'emotional', that's a rather ignorant response in itself.

Nothing wrong with females being more emotional people I wasn't aiming to say they have less logic than men, we can be generally equal in those fields but they tend to use more emotion than logic in some areas

[Joshy]

Violator said:

Nothing wrong with females being more emotional people I wasn't aiming to say they have less logic than men, we can be generally equal in those fields but they tend to use more emotion than logic in some areas

Sorry, but this is still a little bit ignorant. Wrong or not, it is not ideal to talk 'biology and emotions', and that 'we're made that way'. Let me put this way, people are inclined to use the phrase 'stop throwing like a girl'. I can make you throw like a girl. Pick up a ball with your dominant arm, then hand the ball over to your weak arm, and throw. Why is your other arm weaker than your dominant hand? It's a trained response. Why do girls walk weirdly and passively? Trained and embodied response. I'd highly suggest that emotional responses are quite the same. Again, granted that they may have 'reproductive forces' at work (their periods and whatnot) but that in itself isn't enough to suggest 'EMOTIONAL WTF'. They wouldn't be as 'emotional' as everyone would suggest if it wasn't for trained responses. There are fantastic female philosophers out there, so I can't see how their emotional capacities would be stopping them from being strong leaders/thinkers. So, it's quite outdated and pointless to be using the 'more emotional' argument.

[Violator]

Ladna said:

Finally since you insist on the using the "Feminazi" term to describe even reasonable feminists, and are what appears to be a Holocaust denier, I can no longer take you seriously. If any of that's wrong feel free to correct me.

I don't deny the Holocaust, I question it, we should be able to question anything freely without persecution but lets keep this on topic, I use the term feminazi to describe woman, like my aunt who actually are stupid enough to believe a female boxer could defeat one of the Klitschko brothers in boxing, there are far too many feminists that think that way, they are eager and happy to tell you that woman are superior to men but as soon as you disagree you get called all kinds of words that end with "ist", feminist activists that don't get down your neck by spewing bullshit are too few and far between.

[Ladna]

I have some anecdotal evidence to show that men pretty emotional as well.

- John Boehner is famous for tearing up all the time
- Men have written billions of love songs, poems, plays, books, etc.
- The Trojan War was fought over a woman
- Andy Murray could barely talk after losing to Federer at Wimbledon
- Joe Biden still chokes up when he talks about losing his wife and daughter

In fact, some of the toughest people I've ever met have been women who were nurses.

===

Your aunt might just not be very informed. I don't think you should judge an idea by what people who aren't informed think about it.

[Violator]

Woman and men are separated by their different roles within society, much like that in the animal kingdom

[Violator]

I love woman for what they are and what they do don't get me wrong, I hate womanizers and people who think it's okay to cheat, abuse and treat woman badly and vice versa, I might come off as a womanizer but I'm just giving my honest opinion here - I have had some crazy experiences with woman and their emotions far too often in life to acknowledge that we are completely the same in those terms

[Joshy]

Violator said:

Woman and men are separated by their different roles within society, much like that in the animal kingdom

Yes and no. This isn't the caveman days any more. The survival paradigm has shifted from primitive lifestyle, man hunting for food and woman nursing children, to mostly striving for economic stability and consumerism. Days of 'biological superiority and roles' are over.

The main problems with 'roles' is the values attached to such roles. Simply put, the roles aren't respected enough. E.g. housework is unpaid work, and paid work for women isn't enough usually for a living: how the heck you'd expect a woman to be independent if she is incapable of respected autonomy and self-sufficiency?

[Technician]

tumblr and the "new atheist" community is starting to sour me on modern feminism.

[Joshy]

Violator said:

I love woman for what they are and what they do don't get me wrong, I hate womanizers and people who think it's okay to cheat, abuse and treat woman badly and vice versa, I might come off as a womanizer but I'm just giving my honest opinion here - I have had some crazy experiences with woman and their emotions far too often in life to acknowledge that we are completely the same in those terms

No hard feelings! It is just that you (as well as the 'emotional' women you've met and mingled) have been taught to perceive and practice these experiences as a natural phenomenon, so your opinion comes off as jarring to people aware of such phenomena as designated/man-made.

[Ladna]

Violator said:

Woman and men are separated by their different roles within society, much like that in the animal kingdom

What are those roles?

[Kira]

Violator said:

Woman make terrible leaders as they think with way too much emotion rather than logic I have found. Feminazi's don't do females any favours they just prove that woman can be sexist too.

Tell me how Angela Merkel is emotionnal and we'll talk again.

[DoomUK]

Ladna said:

there's a disgusting, cruel difference between male and female "circumcision"

While one is certainly more cruel than the other, both are senseless and barbaric customs. Just because one is accepted in Western culture while the other isn't doesn't give it any credence. There's no sensible reason to remove the foreskin expect for some rare medical circumstances.

[Phobus]

I hardly think very specific examples somehow make the scientifically observed and generally well-accepted fact that, when it comes right down to it, women are wired to act more on emotions (this is due to a very, very long time of evolution making sure they are adapted to being mothers) and men's brains lean more on the logical side (I'd tend to presume more due to the absence of the motherly thing - probably dates back to the hunter-gatherer days).

In much the same way that knowing a 6'2" woman who can bench press a fridge doesn't suddenly mean that women aren't generally the smaller and weaker half of the species (again, due to evolution favouring men's physical hunter-gathering role in that field) or that knowing one guy who never seems to get ill and lived to a hundred suddenly stops women having the higher average life expectency and the more robust immune system (which they need due to the fact that they have to be capable of supporting a second life-form within themselves).

I don't mind equality, but I hate bullshit.


I'd actually go as far as to say that women and men aren't equal, because, biologically speaking, we're not. We even out the differences by having biological roles we're suited for and others that we're not. What I will say is that there is no reason for women and men to not be equal in society as individual skill decides how suitable we are for any given role/job/duty/etc. You're a big, strong person? Do something physical. Very clever? Best use that for science, engineering or something else thinking-intensive. Got no particular skills aside from the gift of the gab? We've got jobs for that. I appreciate that the societal-standing-equality is what a good feminist is campaigning for (equal oppurtunity, equal pay, equal standing), but I see the point get last far too often in meaningless rhetoric. I also see a surprising amount of historical examples where it isn't actually proper equality that's being asked for, but some kind of "best deal" arrangement. As this post started out saying though, I won't judge a whole thing by it's exceptions.

[GreyGhost]

Ladna said:

- The Trojan War was fought over a woman

A woman who had inherited the throne of Sparta, that's what made Helen worth fighting over.

[Joshy]

I think the more important thing here is that we should be accepting differences, and abandon the 'equality' rhetoric (which is basically what the good feminists say). No matter what, using the 'equality' rhetoric, people are always going to suggest the qualities within men and women are biologically innate or that man- logical/active, and woman-emotional/passive/nurturing, blah blah blah. And again, no matter what, there's always going to be men and women (and intersex people) contradicting their supposedly innate qualities. Intransigence continuously circulating. It's just a pointless circular argument that people won't seem to let go of.

[Ladna]

DoomUK said:

While one is certainly more cruel than the other, both are senseless and barbaric customs. Just because one is accepted in Western culture while the other isn't doesn't give it any credence. There's no sensible reason to remove the foreskin expect for some rare medical circumstances.

I agree in general, but female circumcision isn't just removal of the clitoris. Some forms involve removal of the inner labia, outer labia, and sewing the vagina shut (holes are cut during sex and birth, periods are excruciating. It's also typically done when the girl is a teenager, and without anaesthetic. All that said, I don't think male circumcision makes any sense either, but my intent when I brought up female circumcision was to highlight that it's obviously not circumcision, it's profoundly horrifying, and that the equating of the two practices by use of the same word to describe them probably has a specific purpose rooted in sexism.

Phobus said:

I hardly think very specific examples somehow make the scientifically observed and generally well-accepted fact that, when it comes right down to it, women are wired to act more on emotions (this is due to a very, very long time of evolution making sure they are adapted to being mothers) and men's brains lean more on the logical side (I'd tend to presume more due to the absence of the motherly thing - probably dates back to the hunter-gatherer days).

In much the same way that knowing a 6'2" woman who can bench press a fridge doesn't suddenly mean that women aren't generally the smaller and weaker half of the species (again, due to evolution favouring men's physical hunter-gathering role in that field) or that knowing one guy who never seems to get ill and lived to a hundred suddenly stops women having the higher average life expectency and the more robust immune system (which they need due to the fact that they have to be capable of supporting a second life-form within themselves).

I don't mind equality, but I hate bullshit.


I'd actually go as far as to say that women and men aren't equal, because, biologically speaking, we're not. We even out the differences by having biological roles we're suited for and others that we're not. What I will say is that there is no reason for women and men to not be equal in society as individual skill decides how suitable we are for any given role/job/duty/etc. You're a big, strong person? Do something physical. Very clever? Best use that for science, engineering or something else thinking-intensive. Got no particular skills aside from the gift of the gab? We've got jobs for that.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph, but I think the first part of your post deserves attention. First, I'm not aware of any such studies, and I'd be interested to read them, because I've actually read studies to the contrary (warning PDF). Second, studies find brain differences along all sorts of lines, gender, race, profession, lifestyle, region, exposure to certain chemicals, etc.

Aside from studies themselves, I think it's important to point out (as you do later on) that while there may be differences, it's extremely dangerous to draw any conclusions based on them. What if we find out that white people are more likely to be greedy? Should we enact a white person tax? What if we find out that blacks are great at math, should we create disincentives to them entering non-math professions?

Furthermore, saying that "women are naturally more emotional" has implications that are at best unfair. Emotional implies irrational or immature, and I would argue that no race or gender has a monopoly on those characteristics. Does anyone really think that US foreign policy hinges on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mood swings? You can see how close to the edge of offensive sexism this line of reasoning comes.

Re: women bench pressing refrigerators, I was probably being too clever. I like to try and combat fallacy with fallacy in an ironic sort of way, so for example if someone comes up with anecdotal evidence ("my uncle smoked for 70 years and died at 105"), I like to provide equally anecdotal yet more ridiculous evidence ("I knew a kid in middle school who smoked a pack of cigarettes and died of lung cancer the next day"). Sometimes we get to walk down the path of "why is anecdotal evidence bad", but more often than not people try to poke holes in my fake anecdotes and when I continually fill the holes with fake facts, they just get pissed off. I lead a lonely life, haha.

Anyway, it has been shown that women are on average smaller and weaker than men. There are also studies that show that their math and science scores are weaker than those of men. Those studies don't draw any conclusions as to why, they're simply big data sinks. Just spitballing right here I can say a couple things, first that girls-only schools don't show a drop-off in math & science aptitude, and secondly that
Anglo-Saxon women are taller and larger on average than Asian men. Were Asian men somehow exempted from hunting?

To return to my main point, I don't believe those studies should be the basis for any generalizations or policymaking. No one should say to an 8-year-old girl, "yeah you might be good at math now, but around age 14 you'll suddenly become math stupid, so give up being a programmer" or, "you'll never be as tall/strong/quick as Rajon Rondo, so give up being a basketball player".

Finally, people generally tend to give too much credence to evolution when talking about the differences between men & women. "Oh women had to raise the kids, so they're naturally emotional", "oh women couldn't chase down bison, so they had to gather fruits & nuts, therefore they have a more discerning eye and they naturally stockpile stuff". A lot of this backseat biologizing is subtly sexist, with a thin justification layer of "science". Science can't even declare that women are more or less emotional than men, if not simply for the fact that it's hard to even describe what the hell that means in a scientific way.

As an aside, 10/11 was the international day of the girl. Hooray girls!

[fraggle]

Bravo Ladna for writing such a thorough demolition of this misogynistic nonsense.

Looked through the thread to find what the comment was that started this discussion, and found this. Wow.

Shadowman said:

Someone wrote that tortures of women are cruel, and e.t.c.
And so, these sprites is a reaction by means of Doom-mapping of Pussy Riot's recent vagary in Moscow. IMHO, some women do deserve tortures, and Pussy Riot are the first candidates on it.
I hope now there won't be any questions about those sprites' meaning.