CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
I Don't Understand Feminists... Men Are Dominant.
Women psychologically and physically can never match the dominance of a men. Now I am not attempting to disempower women, I just scratch my head to so many feminist who cannot rap their head around why it is that it is mostly men that have positions of power, and why it is that it is men who have most of the aggressive sports, etc.
It seems that they cannot appreciate the evolution of mankind. Perhaps, if we were hyenas, the social system would be quite different, but male humans have evolved to be dominant, again, both psychologically and physically. Males brains are even (anatomically) 13% BIGGER than a female brain, which is significant in terms of psychology. So why do feminist ignore they scientifically proved evidence of men being dominant?
Additionally, when looking at entrepreneurship, women face sexual harassment issues, especially when seeking investors. Since we would be blamed for our own rape or molestation, it behooves us to avoid situations where we could possibly be seen to have instigated an attack. Plus, most people feel women are weaker intelligently, despite opposing evidence, and don't want to put their money in a company run by women.
I will grant you women have a natural tendency to be somewhat weaker, because in women, the body converts nutrients to fat in case of future reproduction at which time such stores will be beneficial, while in men, the body converts nutrients to muscle to fight off predators in defense of the pregnant woman, but this is only one factor to strength. By working out and lifting weights, women have the potential to be just as strong as men, but typically are discouraged from such activity by society. However, I promise, I could kick your butt in a fight.
Biologically, men have become dominant because by being dominant, they could control female sexuality, and minimize the risk of raising another man's child. However, societally, we should and mostly have moved past this, and in light of that, women are not subordinate.
Additionally, religion has been used for centuries to oppress women. The "Adam and Eve" myth, the "women are subject to their husband's will" thing, religion has been telling women that if they don't submit to their husband, they are going to hell (or whatever equivalent). Women were raised, basically brainwashed into faiths that were telling them they had no choice in their own life. So feminism has just helped them take back the control they should always have had.
And seriously, you don't understand why a woman would want to not be blamed for her own rape? Or be paid the equivalent of men? And feminism benefits men as well - it allows men to express their feelings, thereby lowering health issues from stress and minimizing depression rates. It supports men entering into any career they so choose, just as much as women should be able to. It promotes fathers taking care of their children and not being considered a pervert for being at the park with their kid during the day. The feminist movement supports the LGBT movement.
You, as with most feminist, negate the evolutionary factors that led to such a societal construct. And you negate the psychological factors that would cause for men to be put in positions of higher power. Women are different decision makers than men, and it just so happens that the fields in which men make the best positions are powerful fields (such as business).
Women are more likely to go to college, more likely to hold higher degrees, more practiced at multitasking
Though it's quite funny that men are the ones in the highest positions- I say this because your 'degree' has nothing to do with your intelligence. Any woman can remember a bunch of facts and get high score on a test, but to actually intellectualize the data you're assessing takes a certain mentality- and I am not saying that only men are intellects, though most intellectual (not powerful) positions (science, philosophy) are also mainly held by men... why do you think that is?
Also, why is that most self-made millionaires and billionaires are men? This has nothing to do with society (hence "self-made").
You see the distinct mentality in children. Boys are more mechanical and are more inquisitive about puzzles, girls like pretty things such as colorful dolls (there is also a correlation with women liking the color pink).
You seem to negate the fact entirely that males are more dominant than women- which is a feminist extremist view that is entirely irrational. Men are indeed more dominant, and always have been.
Plus, most people feel women are weaker intelligently, despite opposing evidence, and don't want to put their money in a company run by women.
Women make a lot of decisions based on emotion (whether it be subconscious or not). That being the case, it's quite hard to trust someone with loads of money that may make a terrible decision one day because she's feeling like a whale because she feels her husband doesn't look at her the same.
Also, why do you think women are mainly in nursing and teaching fields? It could be the case that their evolutionary instincts renders them more fit for such field (they have instincts for childcare which would include medically attending to their wounded child (in a way in which they would see best fit), and since women are designed to raise the child, teaching would have to be an essential skill to have.
Biologically, men have become dominant because by being dominant, they could control female sexuality, and minimize the risk of raising another man's child. However, societally, we should and mostly have moved past this, and in light of that, women are not subordinate.
Is this a prime illustration of women's ability to reason? Perhaps your emotions deluded your reasoning?
If it is a biopsychological reason for a trait... how would you expect society to just bypass such a trait? This is tantamount to telling homosexuals to stop being gay because society deems it inappropriate.
Lastly, most women like being less dominant. They openly admit to wanting a husband that makes more than them, they want men older than them, they're attracted to men who have a dominant social status, etc. Why do you think there is a stigma for middle school jocks and geeks? The jocks get more girls simply because they express dominance (sociologically and physiologically). But in college (respectable ones), the smarter guys get more girls because this dominant trait becomes more apparent, as they will typically have more money which the aforementioned trait is more attractive to women.
there is also a correlation with women liking the color pink).
I just want to start with this point, because while so much of your post proved that you had no science or, you know, sense, backing you up, this one is just glaring. The distinct mentality that girls like different things, as evidenced by them liking pink, is a load of crap. Up until WW2, blue was considered to be a girly color, while pink was masculine. Only reason that changed was Hitler. If you provide a girl with a typically boy toy and a typically girl toy, but don't provide any pressure on which one she chooses, it can go either way
why is that most self-made millionaires and billionaires are men? This has nothing to do with society (hence "self-made").
So not only do you not understand sex, gender, and biology, but you also don't understand business. Self-made means a company you created, it doesn't not mean society had no effect on you. Unless you are independently wealthy to begin with, most businesses, especially those that will rake in millions, have investors. Investors, in the current US society, dislike working with women and do like sexually harassing them. As I said in my first post.
Women are different decision makers than men, and it just so happens that the fields in which men make the best positions are powerful fields (such as business).
You seem to negate the fact entirely that males are more dominant than women- which is a feminist extremist view that is entirely irrational. Men are indeed more dominant, and always have been.
Of course I negate it. It's not a fact, and it's not true.
Is this a prime illustration of women's ability to reason? Perhaps your emotions deluded your reasoning?
Really? Science isn't good enough for you? In society today, we have the choice on whether or not to reproduce. Many people have multiple sex partners, in many cases, multiple spouses over the course of their lives, and divorced or widowed people often remarry, even when kids are involved. Society has already bypassed that trait. It's actually opposite to telling homosexuals to stop being gay, because it's saying do what's best for you.
I just want to start with this point, because while so much of your post proved that you had no science or, you know, sense, backing you up, this one is just glaring. The distinct mentality that girls like different things, as evidenced by them liking pink, is a load of crap. Up until WW2, blue was considered to be a girly color, while pink was masculine. Only reason that changed was Hitler
This is a load of crap and was found out to be a myth
So not only do you not understand sex, gender, and biology, but you also don't understand business. Self-made means a company you created, it doesn't not mean society had no effect on you. Unless you are independently wealthy to begin with, most businesses, especially those that will rake in millions, have investors. Investors, in the current US society, dislike working with women and do like sexually harassing them. As I said in my first post.
I am sorry to say that it is you who doesn't understand business: if something seems highly profitable, investors will invest regardless of gender. In business, all people care about is money. So if you show proof of concept that will likely make the investors lots of money, they will invest. (Perhaps it is mentality like this that keep women from such success?)
Also, men are likely to take more risks- and becoming highly successful involves a lot of risks.
This is a load of bull.
Sure women are better decision makers under stress, but men ted to think long term whereas women tend to think in short terms (albeit well thought out).
Though, this article seems to be partial- which is understandable since America wishes to empower women, as equality is the new agenda (take Hillary Clinton and Obama, for example).
Of course I negate it. It's not a fact, and it's not true.
Again, you women openly express how subdominant you are, I used your male preferences as an illustration of so (liking men with more money than you, liking men stronger than you, liking men who are more dominant than others, and liking men with a dominant patina (i.e. social dominance). Even with sex, most women have shown to prefer 'doggy style' and missionary (both completely submissive positions) - why? Because women love to be dominated (hence the pleasure derived from being half choked).
You can negate the pragmatic dominant view (esp. with female preferences), but... that is up to you.
Really? Science isn't good enough for you? In society today, we have the choice on whether or not to reproduce [...]
I was speaking in terms of a logical progression with biopsyhological traits. If these traits are predisposed, one cannot simply detach from it- which is why I used the homosexuality example. Homosexuality is a predisposition, therefore rendering it uncontrollable (at least with modern science).
Your point about reproduction addresses something completely irrespective of my point. You are speaking in terms of controlling actions, and I am speaking in terms of psyche that would render their actions resulting from so. If women instinctively function to be subdominant with the male being the opposite, then society would persists with such construct given the natural laws regarding psychology.
A homosexual has a psyche comprised of attraction towards the same sex, this psychological makeup would obviously compel them to search for a same-sex mate. Sure, they can bypass the action of the search, but not the want of the search. This applies to women seeking the type of men aforementioned. They want dominant men (but of course there is always a select few women who seek submissive men).
Why do you think women find it unattractive for men to be subdominant? Its entirely instinctual and can be explained through evolution.
Men are also more dominant given their higher testosterone levels. And studies have shown that, when you give women more testosterone, their aggressiveness and their will to be dominant becomes increases. So you can negate science all you wish, but again, that's on you..
Sure women are better decision makers under stress, but men ted to think ling term whereas women tend to think in short terms (albeit well thought out).
LOL LOL LOL I fucking love it. "oh yeah of course they are better decision makers but only UNDER STRESS. IDIOT! Of course clearly I meant the relaxed type of decision making". LOL the wonders of having an ego so massive that it might one day implode.
men are likely to take more risks- and becoming highly successful involves a lot of risks.
Again, not necessarily true. The bigger issue is that women don't tend to have the same resources to play with. However, other studies indicate that men would often be better served by being less overconfident and more cautious.
If women instinctively function to be subdominant with the male being the opposite,
but they don't. There are societies in the world that are female-dominant, such as the Nagovisi and the Ede. The mere existence of these societies indicates that male dominance is a social construct, not a biological one. Additionally, we can overcome biological instincts. If we couldn't, we would all still be terrified of snakes.
women have shown to prefer 'doggy style'*
I don't know what you're talking about there. Most women prefer on top. But regardless, women tend to prefer a position that gives them (and that can vary, because bodies vary) the most physical pleasure, because so very much of the time, men can't be bothered to give us a damn orgasm, so we have to make the situation to our advantage. If we do want doggy, it's probably not a submissive thing, it's probably a "we're pretending you're Channing Tatum" thing and we don't want your face to get in the way of fantasy. Sorry.
Will they? Because studies and accounts indicate otherwise.
So you’re saying investors will not invest in a woman who could potentially make them billions? If mark Zuckerberg was a woman he(she) would not have received investments of 200 million so on and so forth?
I get your point, though, it’s strange you’ve somehow formulated a belief that investors’ primary focus is not money…
--
[I will continue further if you acknowledge that you cannot address my points regarding women wishing to be inferior.]
Here, I will repost it:
"You women openly express how subservient you are, I used your male preferences as an illustration of so (liking men with more money than you, liking men stronger than you, liking men who are more dominant than others, and liking men with a dominant patina (i.e. social dominance).
Why do you think women find it unattractive for men to be subservient? It’s entirely instinctual and can be explained through evolution."
I shall not acknowledge that I cannot address those points. Those points are ludicrous, and I got bored replying long before I reached them. Additionally, they don't take into account that not all women want a man - at least in a serious relationship. But anyway, let me address them now so that we're clear - there will be links, but feel free to ignore them as you've been doing. Women don't wish to be inferior - at least not the majority (I obviously can't account for every lunatic out there).
Here's a study on women "liking men who are more dominant". Oops, oh wait...
Women don't care if the man is making money - we care that he has ambition, a passion, that he lives life.
And fyi - women find subservient unattractive because it's annoying. I don't want a guy - or a friend or a family member - who's sitting there waiting on me hand and foot, or whining about stuff instead of doing stuff. Just like I won't do that stuff to someone else. It's called being an adult. We can be equal (not you and me, I've got science on my side, and you've got...your imaginary points, I guess), without one gender being dominant over the other.
Women are different decision makers than men, and it just so happens that the fields in which men make the best positions are powerful fields (such as business).
Citation needed.
Though it's quite funny that men are the ones in the highest positions- I say this because your 'degree' has nothing to do with your intelligence. Any woman can remember a bunch of facts and get high score on a test, but to actually intellectualize the data you're assessing takes a certain mentality- and I am not saying that only men are intellects, though most intellectual (not powerful) positions (science, philosophy) are also mainly held by men... why do you think that is?
Yes well that is the question isn't? You are saying that it is because of natural ability and others are saying it is because of social conditions. You are begging the question.
You see the distinct mentality in children. Boys are more mechanical and are more inquisitive about puzzles, girls like pretty things such as colorful dolls (there is also a correlation with women liking the color pink).
I have known several small boys that had pink as their favourite colour at the age of 3 and 4, and enjoyed playing with 'colourful dolls' yet they are conditioned against those things by their peers as they grow.
You seem to negate the fact entirely that males are more dominant than women- which is a feminist extremist view that is entirely irrational.
Begging the question.
Women make a lot of decisions based on emotion (whether it be subconscious or not).
Citation needed.
Also, why do you think women are mainly in nursing and teaching fields? ? It could be the case that their evolutionary instincts renders them more fit for such field (they have instincts for childcare which would include medically attending to their wounded child (in a way in which they would see best fit), and since women are designed to raise the child, teaching would have to be an essential skill to have.
As a male that has worked in both teaching and nursing I can tell you that men, in general are actively discouraged from persuing these types of careers. I can tell you though that I have always been as good, if not better, than my female counterparts. Ask yourself this.. 50 years ago when the vast majority if teachers were male - would you still have been arguing that women make the best teachers? I think not.
If it is a biopsychological reason for a trait... how would you expect society to just bypass such a trait? This is tantamount to telling homosexuals to stop being gay because society deems it inappropriate.
No. A correct analogy would be... telling people not to kill another for food, or rape or piss in the street. We are not slaved to what you judge should be natural. Men have a tendency to dominate women is your argument. Is this morally okay is the question.
All of your argument is either begging the question or something that needs more citation than "From The Mind of Harvard".
Yes well that is the question isn't? You are saying that it is because of natural ability and others are saying it is because of social conditions. You are begging the question.
There are no social conditions limiting women scientists and philosophers. Her point addressed business, in which she makes some points to a degree, but there are also other factors.
There are no social conditions limiting women scientists and philosophers.
Citation: From the Mind of Harvard. The article says nothing about social conditions not effecting why less women become scientists. Infact, it contradicts your point:
"One study showed that female students with math, science and engineering majors were uninterested in attending a summer math and sciences conference after they were shown videos in which the gender ratio was unbalanced, with three males for every one female [source: Bryner]."
This is women responding to social conditions in a way that dissuades them from participating in science or maths that has nothing whatsoever to do with raw ability.
This isn't a case of social conditions limiting women- such implies that the locus of control is out of the hands of said women- this is a case of women consciously opting to limit themselves, citing social conditions as their reasoning. At this point it's analogous to a self fulfilling prophecy. The women who might attend such a function and even out the gender ratio refuse to attend the function and even out the gender ratio because they don't like the gender ratio. If all of the women who might want to attend such a function refuse to do so until the gender ratio is closer, the gender ratio will never be closer. Advancement of any kind involves stepping out of ones element...
Basically, they're all waiting for someone else to step up, and blaming the world when it doesn't happen.
Your take seems to absolve men of any hand in the issue.
The framing is more like "current social conditions are unfavorable environments for women, this deters women". Your take on this is kind of blame the victim.
It is no secret that things are historically skewed towards the benefit if males over females. To ask for "...stepping out of ones element..." to be the prerequisite addressing inequality is really asking to be met on the uneven playing field. Privilege likes to be met on its own terms. It is gatekeeping.
Rather than settling the onus on women to solve this problem we need to recognize that men are part of the issue. We all have to note that we have certain privileges that we did not earn but instead born into. Obviously we all, men and women, should help bring about change. Why wait for someone else to make it when you can help someone else make it?
Its not like we had to all wait for slaves to free themselves, we all had to get there together. Why would women have to, by themselves, bear a burden we are all complicit in?
The issue preventing women from attending these functions has been stated to be the gender ratio.
There are exactly three ways that the gender ratio can be evened out.
1) More women attend the functions to balance out the greater number of men.
2) Less men attend the functions to balance out the smaller number of women.
3) A combination of 1 and 2.
Method 1 is a positive action taken by women that can directly improve the circumstances. They benefit directly from this, and to nobody's detriment.
Method 2 is a negative action taken by men that can result in a similar improvement of the circumstances for women. Women benefit from this, to the detriment of the men who must give up the ability to attend said functions for the sake of the women.
Your take seems to absolve men of any hand in the issue.
Not at all. I'm aware that certain men are directly responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for certain women. Changes in social attitudes, however, typically occur over generations. The issue you would address benefits women down the road, but essentially leaves every woman who would pursue these fields today in the lurch.
The framing is more like "current social conditions are unfavorable environments for women, this deters women". Your take on this is kind of blame the victim.
It is no secret that things are historically skewed towards the benefit if males over females. To ask for "...stepping out of ones element..." to be the prerequisite addressing inequality is really asking to be met on the uneven playing field. Privilege likes to be met on its own terms. It is gatekeeping.
Current social conditions are more favorable towards women than they have ever been (probably slightly hyperbolic, apologies there). Those conditions are steadily improving in numerous spheres. Social conditions arise from the attitudes and viewpoints of the members of the society in question- these change over generations, and have been changing generation by generation since the womens rights movement began.
And I believe you have misunderstood me. "Stepping out of ones element" is not a prerequisite for addressing inequality- it is a prerequisite for advancing in any kind of career. Show me an even playing field, anywhere, and I'll show you where you're wrong.
This is not gatekeeping or victimization. Nobody is preventing women from attending except themselves, and their very attendance is all that is required to balance out the gender ratio that is evidently the problem.
Rather than settling the onus on women to solve this problem we need to recognize that men are part of the issue. We all have to note that we have certain privileges that we did not earn but instead born into. Obviously we all, men and women, should help bring about change. Why wait for someone else to make it when you can help someone else make it?
Neither men or women are going to solve the problem as you're framing it- the next few generations of people will solve it (hopefully). But the only solution for the immediate issue is for women to bite the bullet, step up, and balance the gender ratio. But sure, let's say I was one of the men planning on attending one of these functions. What can I do, personally, to improve the gender ratio for the benefit of women? I could opt to just not attend that function. But, why shouldn't I? What's my motivation for giving up the function for the sake of coddling women I don't even know?
Its not like we had to all wait for slaves to free themselves, we all had to get there together. Why would women have to, by themselves, bear a burden we are all complicit in?
The women in question here are not comparable to slaves, in any way. That said, nobody is suggesting that they have to bear the burden of changing the social climate themselves, but the very idea of making sweeping changes in social structure inside of a single generation without a major life-changing force (eg. war, natural disasters, etc) acting as an impetus for the change is ludicrous.
Remember- the issue stated here is the gender ratio. This is a problem that quite literally only requires warm bodies to solve. The underlying privilege and prejudice will eventually be dispelled over a couple of generations- but only if women get more involved with the field despite discomfort to serve as examples to the subsequent generation.
Every woman who refuses to attend a function she is interested in due to the gender ratio is perpetuating that ratio. Said women harm not only themselves, and not only other women who might be interested in attending said functions, but women in general, as a lack of women in the field who can influence the next generation of children (directly or indirectly) means maintenance of the same status quo that is resulting in the problematic gender ratio in the first place.
I think it is more than simply the gender ratio being the deterrent. It is what the gender ratio implies in the current social environment that women have to deal with.
Women aren't saying "not enough women in there better not go" they are saying " lots of men, the situation is likely uncomfortable for many women."
You seem to agree with this point even.
I'm aware that certain men are directly responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for certain women.
Your method 1 puts this fixing of the environment solely on the women to fix. It is saying women need to address that men are sometimes systemically responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for women.
Your method 2 is saying men could back out but really there is more options. In context of the social environment method 2 should be "men could foster better working environments for all" rather than men not participating at all. Why wouldn't men want to change their detrimental social behaviors?
Your number 3 makes sense with my revised version much more than your dichotomy. Of course both groups need to work towards the same goal, that should be obvious. But you seem to be only pushing for number 1 and that is my contention.
"The underlying privilege and prejudice will eventually be dispelled over a couple of generations- but only if women get more involved with the field despite discomfort to serve as examples to the subsequent generation."
Shouldn't men also serve as examples to the subsequent generation?
Put this in context with your number 1 solution above.
Your underlying statement says wait it out, sludge through the shit and things will get better later on. Only if women get more involved even. Again this absolves men of any hand in fixing inequalities today. If someone steps on your toe and then the response is "things will get better later", it certainly isn't taking action to work towards a better more common goal...like stop people from stepping on toes.
What can I do, personally, to improve the gender ratio for the benefit of women? I could opt to just not attend that function.
Or you could attend and if you see a situation that is detrimental towards equality you can call it out. This is part of serving as an example to the subsequent generation. If you see racism, sexism or homophobia why not call it out?
But, why shouldn't I? What's my motivation for giving up the function for the sake of coddling women I don't even know?
As stated already you don't need to not attend. But why wouldn't you act as I noted, serve as a example to subsequent generations? When you kick the can further down the road you are serving as an example aren't you? The message is different though when you do this action. When people call it out then someone gives the bootstrap argument followed by kicking the can further down the road is an argument for keeping the status quo.
Why would we not want to remove hurdles that deter a populace from education, a populace that would greatly benefit from such education and in turn benefit everyone else?
That is gatekeeping. It is keeping the power to permit the standards you deem worthy or fair in spite of not earning such a privilege.
I kind of thought this would be self evident to you.
The 3rd option you presented as a solution is obviously the best choice to make here.
Your method 2 is saying men could back out but really there is more options. In context of the social environment method 2 should be "men could foster better working environments for all" rather than men not participating at all. Why wouldn't men want to change their detrimental social behaviors?
It falls flat right here. Again- "Men" aren't the problem here. Specific men are. An egalitarian man doesn't have a detrimental social behavior to change- all he can do is put pressure on other men in the hope that they will change. This requires a number of outspoken individuals and a significant amount of support. Even then, if the men at these functions clean up their acts, I sincerely doubt women will suddenly come flooding in- especially because they are absent to begin with, and therefore unable to observe the change in question- and given their proclivity at current to avoid a skewed gender ratio because of the attitudes of a subset thereof, I sincerely doubt they're going to take the men at their word here. I could be wrong.
Shouldn't men also serve as examples to the subsequent generation?
I didn't say that they shouldn't- just in this specific case they can't. Men are fundamentally unable to provide an example of a successful female engineer in order to encourage young women to pursue a career in engineering. We can attempt to influence our peers and our children towards a more egalitarian perspective- and should do so- but this alone doesn't solve the problem. Numerous strong female role models are needed in these fields, and significant female participation is necessary to establish these.
I'll concur that both sides need to work to improve the underlying issue- but in terms of the overt issue, that of gender ratio in STEM functions, the burden lies solely on women to improve their attendance, not men to refrain from attending. No matter what is done with the underlying issue, balancing the ratio necessitates either increasing the number of women, decreasing the number of men, or both.
Have you considered that the men willing to forgo a function to improve the gender ratio are most likely NOT the men making women uncomfortable in the first place? As such, I would expect the proportion of 'bad' men to increase, even if the raw number of men decreases, making things even worse for the women.
Your underlying statement says wait it out, sludge through the shit and things will get better later on. Only if women get more involved even. Again this absolves men of any hand in fixing inequalities today. If someone steps on your toe and then the response is "things will get better later", it certainly isn't taking action to work towards a better more common goal...like stop people from stepping on toes.
Your flawed interpretation of my underlying statement says that. My statement says nothing to this effect whatsoever.
Or you could attend and if you see a situation that is detrimental towards equality you can call it out. This is part of serving as an example to the subsequent generation. If you see racism, sexism or homophobia why not call it out?
And how does calling it out at a function with an already skewed gender ratio supposed to improve that gender ratio? Unless you're banking on lots of men just walking out after that. It's not going to summon female attendees into existence by any stretch. And some already do this anyway.
As stated already you don't need to not attend.
And you're not comprehending basic mathematics.
2000 people at an event. 1800 Men, 200 women. If one man calls out others for sexist behavior, there are still 1800 Men and 200 women. If 1600 more women attend, the ratio evens out. If 1600 fewer men attend, the ratio evens out. If 800 fewer men attend and 800 more women attend, the ratio evens out. No change in attitudes is going to change that ratio- only attendance. And without the attendance of individuals who will back the person calling others out, it's only going to backfire.
Please advise as to how one can change a skewed gender ratio without some combination of adding more of one gender and removing some of another?
As stated already you don't need to not attend. But why wouldn't you act as I noted, serve as a example to subsequent generations? When you kick the can further down the road you are serving as an example aren't you? The message is different though when you do this action. When people call it out then someone gives the bootstrap argument followed by kicking the can further down the road is an argument for keeping the status quo.
Why would we not want to remove hurdles that deter a populace from education, a populace that would greatly benefit from such education and in turn benefit everyone else?
Did you miss my statements about attitudes already improving, but generally taking multiple generations to do so? You're missing the trees for the forest here, I think. This is all already happening- but women enduring some potential discomfort and paving the way for their descendants is the most significant thing we can do to influence this. You point out 10 male engineers and 1 female engineer to your kid and then tell him that men and women are equals in the field, and it's not going to add up in his head. You point out 10 of each, and it sends a different message. We need more female participation now to affect the changes that will facilitate more female participation in the future. Don't you get that?
What I'm suggesting here is not mutually exclusive to what you are suggesting in the slightest. Some men certainly need to clean up their act, and maybe more men could stand to call them out on it more often- but changing the attitudes of generations takes a joint effort, and female participation is the single largest factor in doing so here. Men leaving the field, while it may balance the genders in the short term, does not accomplish this. Women entering the field serve to accomplish both.
That is gatekeeping. It is keeping the power to permit the standards you deem worthy or fair in spite of not earning such a privilege.
It is not gatekeeping- it is abstinence by choice. Nothing you have said changes that; all you've done here is explain the rationale behind said abstinence. I never claimed the abstinence was irrational, only that as a mechanic it significantly delays the progression of women in this field, which additionally delays the acceptance of women in this field.
Look at every oppressed group throughout history- are you aware of any cases where the majority just up and decided to change their ways to accomodate a minority? Or, rather, has every case necessitated members of the minority stepping out of their comfort zone, taking a stand, sending a message, and engendering support amongst the majority? We already have the stage set for accepting women in this field. We now need women in the field to accept. Only once a critical mass of women is achieved can we demonstrate- at a scale that nobody can deny- that the gender of the engineer is irrelevant. We still won't change the chauvinist engineer into an egalitarian, but we can sure as hell provide a real-life example for his son that conflicts with the chauvinist's rhetoric. Only with more women, though.
This isn't a case of social conditions limiting women- such implies that the locus of control is out of the hands of said women- this is a case of women consciously opting to limit themselves, citing social conditions as their reasoning
You are from the USA and naturally take the self-determinist view I see. Ultimately we can take any action regardless of social conditions. For example, I know that people will ridicule me if I walk out of my house naked. I can still choose to do it but yet the social attitude to nudism is a factor that dissuades me from doing this (as well as the cold..).
At this point it's analogous to a self fulfilling prophecy. The women who might attend such a function and even out the gender ratio refuse to attend the function and even out the gender ratio because they don't like the gender ratio.
Right. If something is a barrier to doing something, but it is important to us, then we should push on through in order to achieve what we want. This is not to say that there isn't a barrier that makes it more difficult and that should be questioned on a societal level.
I remember when I was 16 I enrolled in a childcare course but dropped out because I was so embarrassed to be the only guy there and felt the course was very female orientated. I also felt I was treated differently from everyone else. I see that as a problem and it went beyond the mere fact of me being surrounded by girls - in other situations this is not so unpleasant. Ultimately I guess I didn't want to do the course enough to continue with the discomfort. However, if the course is very easy and comfortable for one gender, but difficult and uncomfortable for the other, then it is surely worth looking at why that is beyond merely saying "the individual has to try harder".
You are from the USA and naturally take the self-determinist view I see. Ultimately we can take any action regardless of social conditions. For example, I know that people will ridicule me if I walk out of my house naked. I can still choose to do it but yet the social attitude to nudism is a factor that dissuades me from doing this (as well as the cold..).
Yes, all true. But despite this, there are areas in the world where nudism is more accepted and less ridiculed. This is solely due to exposure (pun intended). If nudism can get localized support simply by having others recognize their number, surely women can get support in the STEM fields similarly by weight of numbers, if only they're willing to step up.
Right. If something is a barrier to doing something, but it is important to us, then we should push on through in order to achieve what we want. This is not to say that there isn't a barrier that makes it more difficult and that should be questioned on a societal level.
I never suggested that we shouldn't question things on the societal level- rather, I pointed out that changes on this scale take the course of several generations to take effect. We can (and are, really) making change that should improve the gender ratio in subsequent generations- but the only thing that can reasonably improve the gender ratio for the current generation is more female participation. It's very simple math, really.
I remember when I was 16 I enrolled in a childcare course but dropped out because I was so embarrassed to be the only guy there and felt the course was very female orientated. I also felt I was treated differently from everyone else. I see that as a problem and it went beyond the mere fact of me being surrounded by girls - in other situations this is not so unpleasant. Ultimately I guess I didn't want to do the course enough to continue with the discomfort. However, if the course is very easy and comfortable for one gender, but difficult and uncomfortable for the other, then it is surely worth looking at why that is beyond merely saying "the individual has to try harder".
Of course it is worth looking at why that is- but how is the next generation to accept child care as being gender-blind when they have numerous examples of females in child care and only a few examples of males? The process of social change in that direction necessitates men entering that field, in the exact same manner that social change in the stem fields necessitates women entering that field. The social change will not happen without the examples, and the examples have to be willing to step out of their comfort zone for the sake of themselves and the future.
I have not begged the question, and that areas that you think need citations are generally known. So as for you clever smear at the end, I would have thought that anybody who is relatively intelligent individual would have learned such simple psychology (esp. someone as yourself who claims to be in medical school).
Why is it that you seem to be afraid of arguing with thousandin1? He clarified my point but then you hush up... Is it fear? Is it because he isn't known to make fallible points? You let others take your spot but that just illustrates your incompetence.
You asked for a citation I gave it to you, you contended, he clarifies my point, then you back down. Yet, here you are once again imploring citations... I've never seen so much cowardice on a website.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree with most of your arguments.
You say that feminism helps men express their emotions which lowers the likeliness of mental illnesses, but reports on the news and in the media show feminists interrupting men's community meetings about their own issues, so what is it? It helps them to express their emotions, but as soon as they take this on board and host things like community meetings, they are bombarded by feminists protesting against them... Hmm.
Secondly, I would like to tell you something that I hope helps you understand why men get paid more. I have a step dad, which means I have three sets of grandparents instead of 2, and I have 2 parents plus one guardian. Every single one of my male grandparent is not retired and my grandmother is, in each family my dad (and stepfather) works longer and more days than my mum, same with aunties an uncles. And you're right, women are more creative, which means they don't usually go for a degree in the STEM areas, not because they feel they can't. Men also go for the more dangerous dangerous jobs. Here's an example, my mum's an architect, whereas, my uncle is a builder, you see what I mean? My mum doesn't get paid less because she's a woman, she gets paid less because she works from home part time as an architect. And she chose to.
Can I please point out something that feminists may not realize? Society is going to organize itself no matter what, it has been happening since the dawn of time and it's inevitable. Both genders are amazing, but we are different in our capabilities. I know some kick-ass women and I know some bad-ass men so let's just let it go and be happy!!
Yup. We are male dominant, probably due to the fact that we evolved from a line of animals whose males also were. The only animals I can think of that are female dominant are lemurs.
However, I do think we should have moved on from this. Let's empower women. Feminists have merit.
And if you're going to make a counterargument you should probably learn how to read as not once have I said anything about intelligence.
So much for that smear....
Furthermore, I have openly admitted to being a terrible speller due to conditions (dyslexia) I cannot control. So one would question the intelligence of someone incessantly pointing out factors irrelavent and uncontrollable, given that an intelligent individual would not seem to question a situation they already has the answers to.
Does dyslexia prevent you from knowing that psychology includes intelligence??
I have openly admitted to being a terrible speller due to conditions (dyslexia)
I do find it interesting that people who are below average in a given aspect are often the ones defending the average - e.g. my brain is broken, but men have better brains than women...
The general case does not apply to every specific case - there are many women who are better than you physically/psychologically.
incessantly pointing out
Is one post incessant to you?
irrelavent[sic]
relevant
uncontrollable
controllable - (use a good spelling and grammar checker since you know you are deficient in that area.)
So why do feminist ignore they scientifically proved evidence of men being dominant?
That's what you would expect from a man. If men are told they can't do something, they laugh and work hard until they get it done. That is known as a good quality in men, why not in women.
Well that is true to an extent, but it's a matter of how people are raised. I think you are generally speaking for men which is true but there are many men out there who would wimp out just as much as women do and fall apart when someone tells them they can't do something and not work their butts off at all.
In my perspective, women are disciplined with a lighter hand since women have been this image of fragility which brings out disputes about how men shouldn't beat women and whatsoever. Coming with that is a characteristic showered by their parents that their daughter should be lady-like, and when I say lady, we're talking light of the house and not a breadwinner. Men have been long renowned to be breadwinners and working harder jobs and that's when I say that we need to stop comparing who is dominant because we have kept women's opportunity short in the beginning of time and we have seized them useless to even see their inner potentials. Up to this date we are easing out of it, but we are still stuck with the thought that women should only be entitled to less and that develops girls' mindsets to not put out as much effort as a guy does since they're always told that they're second in this stupid gender competition.
Sorry, I was fighting a generalization, so my statement looked similar. I didn't mean to imply that all men do it. I was simply trying to point out that if a man did it he wouldn't think it was so weird.
I think you might be hitting on something when you bring up how children are raised. That sounds like a reasonable explanation.
There is no correlation between brain size and intelligence so let's put that irrelevant fact about bigger brains to side.
Women are in general just as capable as men but still recieve less pay for doing the same job. As girls outperform boys at every stage of their education it is difficult to argue they are less intelligent.
Males brains are even (anatomically) 13% BIGGER than a female brain, which is significant in terms of psychology.
If you didn't mean intelligence than what did you mean. You highlight word bigger so clearly you mean to say that men are better in some way (rather than merely different). So if you didn't mean better in terms of intelligence then what did you mean?
I used to be a modern feminist, and now I amn not.
There are half a dozen modern feminist schools of thought, and that includes a school of feminist thought that is egalitarian, something you claimed to be.
So are you saying you adhered to Anarcha-Feminism? Because if so, that would be why you thought feminism was quite sexist, seeing as how Anarcha-Feminism is quite extremist.
"I Don't Understand Feminists... Men Are Dominant." is the debate. You say "I used to be a feminist muah!" Well good for you dear but that isn't an argument is it.
I agree with the person before me and I don't think I can add anything relative to the argument. I will say that if child birth was left to men, humanity would be extinct.
The reason why men see themselves superior in everything is because they have always been. I mean, a lot men looked down on women back then and didn't even allow them to vote. Women were no breadwinners in the house and men have grown to think "oh wow, we're so much dominant" but that's only because we haven't really given women a chance to perform the same tasks as men. I think it's about time we stop saying which gender is dominant over the other. A lot of feminists do not fight for their rights as a human being because they want to establish dominance over the male sex. They fight because they wanna be treated equally as men in society. Unfortunately, a lot of feminists go over the top and use the advantage as a woman to put all the blame on men which as a female, I highly disagree with.
But back to the point, I don't consider men dominant just because I belong to the female gender but because I actually think there's no sense in comparing both at all. There are some women who are capable of what men can do, there's just so few of them. My physics teacher (and he's a man) told me that women are not to be underestimated only because we grew up playing dolls as given gifts since we are girls. It's something that we didn't have control over as kids--to be raised as "ladies"-- but that doesn't mean that we can't achieve the same things men can. Although the physique build is different from a man's, you still have women who are as massive bodybuilders (I'm not saying a lot of women are but there are a number of em) as other men and in fact are way more muscular than most men and probably so much stronger. We need to unwrap the stereotypical idea of men and women raised a certain way and having to act and perform a certain way to perfectly fall in the "man" and "woman" role in society.
Other than that, both genders have different levels of pain tolerance. I don't think a guy would even appreciate giving birth in a hospital to one kid whether it's a cesarean or worse, a normal delivery. Imagine giving birth to twins, quadruplets or even worse, octuplets. Women might come off weak because that's how women are classified as and are raised as but in that emergency room, it's no joke and carrying a kid for 9 months every single day is not a joke either. I think all men should try the labor pain simulator just for the heck of it.
In your other comments, you clearly state the dominance depends on the field. I guess your claim only works if you ignore the fields for which women are dominant over men.
Would you like it if all you did was stay at home and look after babies and your husband and cook and clean and sew? It's okay if you WANT to do that. What it NOT OKAY is if men force women to do that. I am a feminist and I cannot imagine myself doing that all day. It would get pretty boring. Women are just as talented as men (if not more) and we deserve to do whatever we want. What pisses me off the most is that you men take everything for granted. If it wasn't for us women, there would be no such things as human beings to start with. You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for your mom, grandma, great-grandma and so on. Guys are just too chicken to go through that pain. You should be thankful right now, not saying that man are dominant. WHICH IS NOT TRUE ANYWAY!! I would honestly be ashamed if I was your mom/sister/cousin/auntie/grandma and so on.
women more talented than men lol!! men do not force women to do that guys are not chicken at all we fight in wars. yeah men are dominant and by the way it takes a an to get a women pregnet you idiotic fu*king moron GUYS RULE AND GIRLS DROOL
Were not living in the 1950's. Girls don't stay at home and cook, an feed, and sew. (sewing, really?) And it's not all one gender that is responsible for producing human life, it takes both genders. I really hope you don't need to have how babies are made explained to you...
So please, don't even try doing that whole grandma thing, wow you you should be so grateful.... you wouldn't be here without... stop.
I am quite dumbfounded by the amount of gross misrepresentations regarding my writing. Not once have I stated that men are more intelligent. I said we have bigger brains- an anatomical fact; if this continues then I will just ban the next person who intentionally misrepresents my writings to push their own agenda.
Actually read what I say and not what you want me to say, I was careful in my writings to not make any false, or contentious assertions.
Intelligence can be manifested in differently in certain fields with one gender being dominant in a specific field, for example, women may be more intelligent with childcare, whereas men may be more intelligent with strategic planning (like hunting, or attacking an enemy village, for example).
Hey, stay dumbfounded there Harvard, that's what you're good at, and sure, you've nothing better to do with your time at any rate. As a break from your pompous drivel why don't you try yodeling up the canyon. or some other such activity more commensurate with your arrested intellect. Yes sirree Bob, being dumbfounded and yodeling up the canyon is just you all over. Bye for Now-now-now-now-now.
This could be a clever smear if you understood what "dumbfounded" meant, and didn't continue your remark premised on falsehoods. You seem to think it implies ignorance, which, if you actually understood fundamental English, Englishman, you would've have known this:
Dumbfound- greatly astonish or amaze.
Essentially, all you just said was "stay amazed, that's what you're good at [...]-" which, in a sense, is true because I do love to remain amazed, its what keeps me going in life; if things weren't amazing life would be greatly boring...
Hi again there again Harvard, ( what a pretentious name) Howzitgoin? Must point out that not only are you wrong but you're wrong at the top of your ''voice'', metaphorically speaking. You see old bean, you should never submit a retort when emotionally charged. The adjective, dumbfounded can be used in place of a host of words including, bewildered, bamboozled, overwhelmed, confused and so forth. Place all these appropriate words in a big pot, stir well, make some alphabet soup, pour all over the floor and the jumbled ''staughy'' would be a good description of you.
Must point out that not only are you wrong but you're wrong at the top of your ''voice'', metaphorically speaking. The adjective, dumbfounded can be used in place of a host of words including, bewildered, bamboozled, overwhelmed, confused and so forth.
This would be intelligible and sensible if I used [dumbfounded] in such a context that implied confused. I used it in the literal sense, amazed.
This almost-clever smear would have been successful if you were a mind reader and knew the context posed. I used it in the literal sense, amazed. Though, you may keep trying (though I should warn you that you are digging yourself a deeper intellectual hole).
Secondly, you seem to think that you have effected my emotions in a significant way...? I don't know why you CD users seem to believe that you somehow frustrate people to large degrees with such fatuous and inane remarks that are reflexive of your intelligence.
Perhaps you say something and feel good thinking you have done that of which was intended (to frustrate), but such feelings derives from false conceptions. Why would anyone be angry in virtual discourse especially when the one (believing) he is doing the frustrating sounds completely foolish.
You are directly relating amaze to ignorance which doesn't always have to be the case. One can be amazed with a though every time such thought comes to mind. I am amazed every time I visit the north and see an aurora.
Was the strawman really necessary (you misrepresented my argument by adding in the term "surprise" to falsely substantiate your point on ignorance)? Where have I said that I am "surprised" by "normal" things?
Furthermore, you are issuing a false dichotomy. Amazement doesn't entail ignorance, whether it be 'normal' things or otherwise; it is a description of ones reaction to something; for example, an astronomer may look at nebulae, and galaxies and be amazed even though such galaxies are perfectly normal to him as it is apart of his daily life.
Moreover, normalcy (in this context) is entirely subjective, one thing being normal to you may be different to me. One astronomer may look at nebulae, and galaxies and be amazed; another may look at a supernova and be amazed all of which are entirely normal in the context of [an astronomers] life.
. Amazement doesn't entail ignorance, whether it be 'normal' things or otherwise;
The first time that you are amazed by a microwave making something hot is not ignorance. Being amazed at the 100th time that a microwave makes your food hot is just ignorance.
and be amazed
He should only be amazed when something new shows up, by definition.
It also means "to be filled with astonishment-" to which can mean "to be impressed-" which means "feeling of admiration or respect-" to which the context regarding my amazement for things (not specified) would logically follow.
The first time that you are amazed by a microwave making something hot is not ignorance. Being amazed at the 100th time that a microwave makes your food hot is just ignorance.
Cartman, you keep building your arguments on misrepresentations. I simply said "I do love to remain amazed, its what keeps me going in life-" to attribute microwaves making your food hot to my simple statement, which didn't even specify on things that amazes me, is being grossly uncharitable.
And again, I did not specify the ways in which I love to remain amazed.
He should only be amazed when something new shows up, by definition.
Amaze includes impress, in which one can consistently be impressed. And again, I did not specify the ways in which I love to remain amazed. I could have easily meant that I am amazed at things that are incomprehensible, or inconceivable, etc.
--
As an aside: Let's assume that I did mean "surprised," this doesn't have to be negatively connoted. As you say "and figure it out" as if 'figuring it out' is what should follow with 'being surprised'- one can be surprised that they, in fact, figured something out, as I am sure Newton was with his many significant discoveries.
--
The biggest misrepresentation you've made was including the term "normal". You claim I am always amazed at normal things in life, when I simply said "I love to remain amazed". My amazement could be derived from complex, abnormal phenomena- you came to the conclusion that my amazement derived from normalcy, which isn't true.
It also means "to be filled with astonishment-" to which can mean "to be impressed-" which means "feeling of admiration or respect-" to which the context regarding my amazement for things (not specified) would logically follow.
I can't find any dictionary that says astonishment means impressed. Could you provide which dictionary you are using so that I can update my vocabulary?
to attribute microwaves making your food hot to my simple statement
You provided an example of amazement, and I provided another. That is all.
And again, I did not specify the ways in which I love to remain amazed.
You didn't specify which ones you love, but you specified some that you do remain amazed on.
I could have easily meant that I am amazed at things that are incomprehensible, or inconceivable, etc.
Incomprehensible for you does not mean incomprehensible for all.
Let's assume that I did mean "surprised," this doesn't have to be negatively connoted.
True, unless it is like the microwave example.
As you say "and figure it out" as if 'figuring it out' is what should follow with 'being surprised'- one can be surprised that they, in fact, figured something out, as I am sure Newton was with his many significant discoveries.
Comparing Newton not figuring out gravity right away and you not being able to figure out why women don't want to be subservient is hilarious.
The biggest misrepresentation you've made was including the term "normal".
I apologize. When I said normal, I meant something you would find admirable in a man that you find undesirable in a woman.
You claim I am always amazed at normal things in life, when I simply said "I love to remain amazed".
No, I said that when you tried to change what everyone means when the say dumbfounded.
My amazement could be derived from complex, abnormal phenomena- you came to the conclusion that my amazement derived from normalcy, which isn't true.
This debate is not about complex abnormal phenomena.
A) If it was irrelevant vis-à-vis dominance, why mention it?
B) you specifically say that it is more than a trivial fact, but that it does have relevance: "BIGGER than a female brain, which is significant in terms of psychology" - psychology includes intelligence.
I am quite dumbfounded by the amount of gross misrepresentations regarding my writing. Not once have I stated that men are more intelligent. I said we have bigger brains- an anatomical fact; if this continues then I will just ban the next person who intentionally misrepresents my writings to push their own agenda.
Okay so why is men having bigger brains relevant? That those that are more top heavy are naturally the more dominant ones?
That is a self evident truth which doesn't require elaborate literary embellishment. Almost everything in the modern world from the computer your using, electricity, the telephone, television, the radio, the automobile, the aeroplane, penicillin and so forth were all invented/discovered by man. The list of the male's inventive genius and pioneering ingenuity is endless. Woman's role in society has expanded as a result of political correctness and not due to their suitability for the roles to which they have aspired.
What about the gender imbalances favoring women in some occupational fields? The fact that more women teachers are hired than men? or nurses? Most modern feminists go on and on about higher male employment and how it's unfair for women not to receive equal opportunity. If you identify as a feminist who wants everything to be equal for both genders, you have to look at both sides, and examples of women dominance as well. Besides, working to create equal numbers of men and women hired for a particular job is ridiculous. What happened to being hired because of your work ethic and/or knowledge in the field of work? If I were in an employer's position, I would hire based on these characteristics, rather than hire equal amounts of each gender so that I can keep feminists at bay. If you want an example, take firemen. Because men are anatomically built stronger than women, it would make sense that more of them are hired for the job that could potentially involve carrying a person out of a burning building in order to save their life. Or would you rather have dead or injured people instead of more women in the field of work?
Another thing that feminists complain about is rape and sexualization of women. Can we really blame men for having testosterone levels sometimes up to 20 times higher than a woman's? They might seem hornier.. because they have more of the hormone that fuels sex drive.
In the past feminism was very important, I don't deny that. But now that so much has been achieved- equal women's rights and all that jazz- what's the point? What are modern feminists trying to do? How can you make everything equal for men and women when there is a pre-established hierarchy that favors men when it comes to strength and dominance?
I don't understand feminists either, but if you identify as one, here are some things you can do that will actually make sense:
1. Blame mother nature (or God, or evolution, or whatever it is you hold responsible for the structure of humans) for making men physically stronger and with higher testosterone levels.
2. Encourage employers to hire based on gender, not on the morals of the worker, or how qualified they are for the job
3. If you are a female feminist, go around and rape some guys. If the difference in statistics bother you, that's the only way you're going to be able to fix it.