Jump to content
IGNORED

stupid first world problems you're dealing with


Guest KY

Recommended Posts

Sorry but I don't buy the "it's all men's fault" patriarchy argument.  Women hold a large amount of power in society and it goes largely unnoticed in discussions like this.  They make the majority of purchasing decisions, so they are the primary drivers of the economy.  They are the majority, so they could theoretically vote in favor of their personal benefit.  History matters but only to the extent that it can be used for analysis of current issues.  A history of patriarchy doesn't excuse the current situation.  If feminists want to claim to be in favor of gender equality they actually have to act in favor of gender equality and not just discount the inconvenient male-specific issues because patriarchy supposedly caused them

 

Patriarchy is not some thing that just existed in isolation, at best it's a natural state of our innate biology, since it can be observed in many species completely unrelated to us.  And it's caused by higher responsibilities placed upon males, which comes with subsequent higher privileges for those elite males.  None of us are part of the patriarchy, the vast majority of males throughout history weren't.  It's irrelevant to modern times and women can choose to vote their own fellow women into office if they want, but they don't.

 

As for the job argument, I understand it but it's irrelevant when it comes to feminist motivations for not arguing for more coal miner and lumberjack jobs for women.  And they are stereotypically old style jobs, but they still exist - we still have lumber and coal, so they exist.  


Sorry but I don't think it's well said at all

"Even if it's bad, it's because men made it that way" if we want to go down that path then you have to acknowledge all of the other things that exist on that path, such as the concept that men created the majority of all of modern society, including the good parts.  If they created the bad are you going to acknowledge the good?  I doubt it even though it's an obvious extension of what he said.

 

There's this narrative that men created the bad...  But nobody talks about the good, and assigning it to men's doings is politically incorrect.  So who did the good part?  Men did the bad and women did the good?  Sorry I don't buy that.  Is this going to be responded to in a reasonable way?  Most likely not.

 

"Men are crap, patriarchy caused all of this, not women, even though women are the ones who sculpted the current state of our entire species through their gender-specific sexual selection mechanisms"

Going to acknowledge that?  Women like dominant patriarchal men.  They're sexually attracted to them, as a general rule.  They specifically sculpted our species to be this way.  Going to blame them for that?

Edited by Zeffolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to really bluntly say this now - if an ideology is opposed to people speaking certain truths, then it is inherently flawed.  There are all sorts of abstract justifications for this, generally based on the idea that the truths shouldn't be spoken because they hold within them kernels of sexism or some other undesirable -ism or conclusion, but they are unacceptable if you want the ideology to be considered intellectually viable. 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  If your ideology is unhappy about the fact that I just said this fact then you really need to revise the ideology to be accepting of it and make it capable of interpreting it in terms of the ideology without disregarding the fact entirely - or else the ideology is factually flawed.  That's just how it is.  And feminism breaks if you say this in the minds of most feminists.  This is an unacceptable fact to say.  And believe me, these men did not enjoy laying the bricks.  They did not reserve brick laying and construction, and these bad jobs, as a right only men get to partake in and enjoy, because it's not enjoyable and many died doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's multiple arguments to have here.  your follow up post ignores some obvious things. i don't think that's on purpose i just think you need to diversify your research. you've chased one line of thought and seems your thoughts exclude some history and arguments that have been ignored because let's look at who writes history ay? 

 

i'm not going to throw it all at the feet of the catholic church and bourgeoisie but there's a lot that happened a few hundred or er a thousand years ago... do you know how many women were burned at the stake for stepping outside normal gender roles? in the name of the inquisition? 

 

there were people who basically quit the catholic church.. lot's of them. they started preaching their own version of the gospels because the catholic church was so corrupt.. selling indulgences and all that. these people though they had a better way.. they had a lot of things they didn't like about the catholic church and they changed those things and started what's often referred to as "popular heresy".. thousands of people in lot's of places all over europe.  women were huge make up of this popular heresy because it treated women as equals and allowed women preachers.. didn't relegate women to baby making as their single function.. etc etc.. the church targeted this of course. as to the upper class.. because it didn't suit their ends... 

 

look.. all i'm saying.. is this argument you're making about our "natural state of our innate biology" is often just a story we've been told because that's not actually the case.  women did lot's of other things than "run the household" and "make purchasing decisions". they shared in the labor of everything until it was made illegal for them to do so. 

 

the histories are there to read.. the rebellions, the uprisings, etc.. you can round out your knowledge.  the way things are have been contested continuously often with violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  

 

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical.  Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  

 

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical.  Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs.

 

 

So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's multiple arguments to have here.  your follow up post ignores some obvious things. i don't think that's on purpose i just think you need to diversify your research. you've chased one line of thought and seems your thoughts exclude some history and arguments that have been ignored because let's look at who writes history ay? 

 

i'm not going to throw it all at the feet of the catholic church and bourgeoisie but there's a lot that happened a few hundred or er a thousand years ago... do you know how many women were burned at the stake for stepping outside normal gender roles? in the name of the inquisition? 

 

there were people who basically quit the catholic church.. lot's of them. they started preaching their own version of the gospels because the catholic church was so corrupt.. selling indulgences and all that. these people though they had a better way.. they had a lot of things they didn't like about the catholic church and they changed those things and started what's often referred to as "popular heresy".. thousands of people in lot's of places all over europe.  women were huge make up of this popular heresy because it treated women as equals and allowed women preachers.. didn't relegate women to baby making as their single function.. etc etc.. the church targeted this of course. as to the upper class.. because it didn't suit their ends... 

 

look.. all i'm saying.. is this argument you're making about our "natural state of our innate biology" is often just a story we've been told because that's not actually the case.  women did lot's of other things than "run the household" and "make purchasing decisions". they shared in the labor of everything until it was made illegal for them to do so. 

 

the histories are there to read.. the rebellions, the uprisings, etc.. you can round out your knowledge.  the way things are have been contested continuously often with violence. 

 

Look fair enough, but they can do anything they want now in the west, and in Scandinavian countries specifically, the most egalitarian countries in the world, women largely choose to engage in traditionally feminine occupations.  I don't mean this as a justification for any state of affairs, but as a refutation to the claim that this is all just one big situation completely manufactured by malicious men.  It's not.

 

If you want to analyze the history of gender discrimination are we going to ignore the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who have had to sacrifice their lives for social purposes are men, through war?  Of course we're going to conveniently ignore that, because as usual issues which largely affect men don't matter and are completely skimmed over.  A few women being burned at the stake due to superstitions and bullshit do not discount the billions of men who were forced to die in wars due to their leaders.  This sure annihilates the patriarchy concept and justifies the female privilege concept as far as I'm concerned

Edited by Zeffolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  

 

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical.  Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs.

 

 

So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same?

 

 

Well yeah, if I needed someone to lift 100 lbs I would ask someone who is physically capable of doing so without hurting themselves.  Simple logic there.

Edited by Zephyr_Nova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  

 

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical.  Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs.

 

 

So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same?

 

 

Well yeah, if I needed someone to lift 100 lbs I would ask someone who is physically capable of doing so without hurting themselves.  Simple logic there.

 

 

Resembles a naturalistic fallacy though.  I could say "if I wanted someone to take care of a baby I would ask someone who has bodily organs specifically made for nurturing babies" yet you'd likely deny this is reasonable and I'd agree that it's not entirely reasonable to make this societal expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to really bluntly say this now - if an ideology is opposed to people speaking certain truths, then it is inherently flawed.  There are all sorts of abstract justifications for this, generally based on the idea that the truths shouldn't be spoken because they hold within them kernels of sexism or some other undesirable -ism or conclusion, but they are unacceptable if you want the ideology to be considered intellectually viable. 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  If your ideology is unhappy about the fact that I just said this fact then you really need to revise the ideology to be accepting of it and make it capable of interpreting it in terms of the ideology without disregarding the fact entirely - or else the ideology is factually flawed.  That's just how it is.  And feminism breaks if you say this in the minds of most feminists.  This is an unacceptable fact to say.  And believe me, these men did not enjoy laying the bricks.  They did not reserve brick laying and construction, and these bad jobs, as a right only men get to partake in and enjoy, because it's not enjoyable and many died doing it.

 

 

 

we could also say that those men were slaves. we could say that all of capitalism is built on exploitation. that throughout history slavery and cheap labor exploited far off have benefited countries that made slavery illegal. they benefited from the trade anyways.

 

we could say all the gold and riches that flooded europe via the 'new world' were at the expense of genocide.. 

 

we can speak truths.. i have no trouble with that.. but let's speak the whole truth and let's not ignore our peripheral vision.  

 

i haven't mentioned ideology really. if you're going to study history you should study a lot of it and be prepared to change your assumptions or throw them out the window all together. 

 

when you say "feminism breaks" if you tell them who built the blah blah blah it's not because they were sitting quietly taking orders throughout history. it's because they were dominated and oppressed through a system of control.. it's not a conspiracy. it was just the power structure. i'm sure there were many women who wanted to be masons or carpenters or train engineers or whatever back when all the people lifting heavy things were doing the work of building society but damn if a woman didn't know her place because of what she'd been told for her lifetime. 

 

my grandma smoked, drank, drove fast and cursed. once she drove us home after we stayed the weekend w/her and she raced 2 teenagers in a camaro and went 80 in a 35mph zone while flipping off the kids in the camaro. when she was a kid she threw an inkwell in the principal's face and fled school to hide until the end of the day.  when she was a teen she stole a motorcycle and drove it out into a field. later when she was married her husband was not exactly faithful and my grandma got her 38 put it on the front seat of her car and drove to the woman's house and made her pack her bags and ran her out of town.  she fished, she made art, she was a waitress in BBQ joints for more than 40 years. she never went to college. she had a rough and tumble life for a while and seemed to overcome it all. i think had she lived in a different era all kinds of different opportunities would've been open to her because she was strong minded and risk taking.

 

don't sell yourself short though.. really.. read more books. fill in the gaps. or at least factor in the histories you are ignoring.. 

 

btw.. that story about my grandma is just a thing i felt like saying because she was great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Fact: men literally physically built the vast majority of structures you see in in society, statistically they laid the concrete and set the bricks.  

 

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that's probably because men are physically stronger by nature, so men doing the brunt of the physical labour is logical.  Ditto for the lumberjack/coal miner thing, in addition to sexism when it came to hiring for those jobs.

 

 

So because men as a gender are physically stronger it's more acceptable to exploit them for cheap physical labor as a society and not expect women to do the same?

 

 

Well yeah, if I needed someone to lift 100 lbs I would ask someone who is physically capable of doing so without hurting themselves.  Simple logic there.

 

 

Resembles a naturalistic fallacy though.  I could say "if I wanted someone to take care of a baby I would ask someone who has bodily organs specifically made for nurturing babies" yet you'd likely deny this is reasonable and I'd agree that it's not entirely reasonable to make this societal expectation.

 

Yeah I mean, get someone best equipped for the task in all cases.  There are a lot of physical labour jobs that would be unreasonable to expect the majority of women to do (or to expect it of some little guy like myself).  I think since there's usually more strong men around, they get put to task when it comes to physical labour.  Then there's of course some women who are stronger than most men, but they're a minority.  The taking care of a baby thing is a false equivalence... though if a new born baby needs breast milk, then clearly someone physically equipped to give it is necessary.  But in any other aspect clearly either gender is capable.  With the physical labour jobs, this is not always the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

there's multiple arguments to have here.  your follow up post ignores some obvious things. i don't think that's on purpose i just think you need to diversify your research. you've chased one line of thought and seems your thoughts exclude some history and arguments that have been ignored because let's look at who writes history ay? 

 

i'm not going to throw it all at the feet of the catholic church and bourgeoisie but there's a lot that happened a few hundred or er a thousand years ago... do you know how many women were burned at the stake for stepping outside normal gender roles? in the name of the inquisition? 

 

there were people who basically quit the catholic church.. lot's of them. they started preaching their own version of the gospels because the catholic church was so corrupt.. selling indulgences and all that. these people though they had a better way.. they had a lot of things they didn't like about the catholic church and they changed those things and started what's often referred to as "popular heresy".. thousands of people in lot's of places all over europe.  women were huge make up of this popular heresy because it treated women as equals and allowed women preachers.. didn't relegate women to baby making as their single function.. etc etc.. the church targeted this of course. as to the upper class.. because it didn't suit their ends... 

 

look.. all i'm saying.. is this argument you're making about our "natural state of our innate biology" is often just a story we've been told because that's not actually the case.  women did lot's of other things than "run the household" and "make purchasing decisions". they shared in the labor of everything until it was made illegal for them to do so. 

 

the histories are there to read.. the rebellions, the uprisings, etc.. you can round out your knowledge.  the way things are have been contested continuously often with violence. 

 

Look fair enough, but they can do anything they want now in the west, and in Scandinavian countries specifically, the most egalitarian countries in the world, women largely choose to engage in traditionally feminine occupations.  I don't mean this as a justification for any state of affairs, but as a refutation to the claim that this is all just one big situation completely manufactured by malicious men.  It's not.

 

If you want to analyze the history of gender discrimination are we going to ignore the fact that the vast, vast, VAST majority of people who have had to sacrifice their lives for social purposes are men, through war?  Of course we're going to conveniently ignore that, because as usual issues which largely affect men don't matter and are completely skimmed over.  A few women being burned at the stake due to superstitions and bullshit do not discount the billions of men who were forced to die in wars due to their leaders.  This sure annihilates the patriarchy concept and justifies the female privilege concept as far as I'm concerned

 

 

 

"they can do anything they want now in the west" - and why do you think that is? though i'd argue it's not the case in the USA but we're getting there.. do you think all this change happened w/o struggle? do you think maternity leave and all that happened because men decided?  and if that's the case.. if say.. men did decide and voted for things to be that way then why is that? are there not a bunch of men in congress decided health care issues specific to women? yeah.. last i checked it's 90% men in congress making all kinds of decisions for women. "so why don't the women vote them out?" do we need to dive into that question? 

 

i think characterizing it as being "set up by a bunch of malicious men" is kind of disingenuous. was everything designed to be exactly some way.. maybe.. was this an economy that was hammered into shape over a 1000 years.. sure. the system of the world didn't take shape all at once. 

 

no one is ignoring war.. and if we go back to when these systems were se up plenty of women died too. and they still are in many places in the world. "well i was going to go to school in afghanistan but that crowd of men w/stones over there makes me think i should stay home".  do you know how many women were burned at the stake so they'd STFU about whatever it was they were on about?

 

are men and women different. sure. evidence suggest lot's of things about our brains and biology. does this mean we should shoe horn people into roles defined by gender? no. sorry. it does not. 

 

i think the long term experiment should be to make things equal as possible.. fair.. free.. equal.. then maybe it'll evolve into whatever its natural state is.. maybe we'll find out there are various trends that ebb one way or another over generations then back the other.. a pendulum.

 

will that ever happen? who the fuck knows.  [jordan peterson cries about individualism but refuses to use pronouns for individuals]

btw - personal robots will be lifting all the things soon enough. then... 

 

Edited by ignatius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There us a plant room next door to my dept at work and there's a fire alarm panel in there making a single steady drawn out beeping noise. I can't get into that room as it's on a special key. Called our maintenance dept and they informed me they were aware and had sent out an electrician to deal with it.

 

After an hour I call them back: "oh the battery needs replacing and we don't have a spare right now, probably won't be able to fix it till tomorrow"

 

And so

 

peeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make no claims that gender roles are right or just, simply that they are ignored when they come to male gender roles.  The male gender role of "do hard physical labor and die at a higher rate than women, also you have to fight all the wars" is far worse than "you have to stay safe at home and raise babies" as far as I'm concerned - one has inherently deadly risks to the individual, one does not.

Edited by Zeffolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also as for the right to vote in the US - men do not technically have the right to vote when turning 18 upon birth, and women do.  Men have to register with the selective services upon turning 18 or else they will become felons who sacrifice their right to vote.  Women simply don't have to do anything, they just get the right to vote.  Therefore current female voting rights are superior to current male voting rights - plus females are a majority of the population so they have even stronger voting rights as a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There us a plant room next door to my dept at work and there's a fire alarm panel in there making a single steady drawn out beeping noise. I can't get into that room as it's on a special key. Called our maintenance dept and they informed me they were aware and had sent out an electrician to deal with it.

 

After an hour I call them back: "oh the battery needs replacing and we don't have a spare right now, probably won't be able to fix it till tomorrow"

 

And so

 

peeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep..............peeeeeeeeeeep

just pretend its Mark Fell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol was waiting for something along those lines

 

I was wishing I had a Ryoji Ikeda album among my work CDrs

 

When the radio at work plays up and sounds like garbled mp3 noise, someone ususally shouts 'oi, who put [bechuga]'s music on?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwp - thread. 

 

woke up thinking about it and now on tv is a show about brian scientist and men/women brains sameness/difference

 

going to go meet a dog to possible adopt and suddenly i'm vexed about the whole thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make no claims that gender roles are right or just, simply that they are ignored when they come to male gender roles. The male gender role of "do hard physical labor and die at a higher rate than women, also you have to fight all the wars" is far worse than "you have to stay safe at home and raise babies" as far as I'm concerned - one has inherently deadly risks to the individual, one does not.

Women have been trying to join the marines for fucking ages. They’re finally able to.

Plenty of women die during wars.

 

Do you still think women are rummaging through your trash to get your jizz and impregnate themselves so they can claim child support?

 

You claim not to be bitter toward women, but it sure sounds like you are, because they happen to be enjoying some equality for the first time in, well, ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I make no claims that gender roles are right or just, simply that they are ignored when they come to male gender roles. The male gender role of "do hard physical labor and die at a higher rate than women, also you have to fight all the wars" is far worse than "you have to stay safe at home and raise babies" as far as I'm concerned - one has inherently deadly risks to the individual, one does not.

Women have been trying to join the marines for fucking ages. They’re finally able to.

Plenty of women die during wars.

 

Do you still think women are rummaging through your trash to get your jizz and impregnate themselves so they can claim child support?

 

You claim not to be bitter toward women, but it sure sounds like you are, because they happen to be enjoying some equality for the first time in, well, ever.

 

 

Great response, it definitely doesn't completely ignore everything I said and create massive straw men or anything /s

 

I never said I think women are rummaging through my trash to get my jizz and impregnate themselves so they can claim child support - I simply said it's a real possibility and it has happened to men before, and the fact that this can be done demonstrates that the current laws surrounding child support don't fully catch all the edge cases and need to be revised in favor of a more fair system that women can't exploit - since it's entirely women who are capable of exploiting the existing system

 

As for your last sentence, I really don't see how it's a reply to my post.  I'm not bitter towards women, and I just wrote a very detailed explanation of why on the last page which was conveniently ignored it seems.  Oh well.  This is the type of topic that is difficult to discuss without fallacious replies such as these so I can't say I'm surprised really.

Edited by Zeffolia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.