CCCToad on 27/6/2012 at 04:12
Quote:
It may be "stupid", but the sad truth is that most young women are more attracted to men with power a lot more than they are attracted to men who are sweet and attentive. This is something boys learn very quickl
And, its the truth. Sweet and attentive can help to build a friendship, but it alone is not sufficient to generate attraction. Unfortunately, a lot of women aren't able to distinguish between a guy who is powerful because he is a successful man or one who just seems powerful because he is abusive or chauvinistic.
Bizarrely enough, lots of girls even (
http://www.wired.com/geekmom/2011/01/using-twilight-to-educate-about-abusive-relationships/) romanticize abusive relationships.
Another thing I've noticed is that the biggest way that more destructively sexist norms are spread is through the parents. The biggest pattern I see in the female's I've known is that the ones who consistently are involved in relationships where they are abused, used, or manipulated by their "partners" are invariably the same ones who had parents that were either abusive or neglectful.
As much as we'd like to discuss hypotheticals, the reality is that any broad sweeping solution we propose to unhealthy gender attitudes is only a partial solution. Chauvanistic or sexist attitudes are generally imprinted by one's parents so the only efforts that will be successful (and even then, it will be slow) are ones that successful influence how current and future parents think in terms of gender roles.
Aside: I really think people tend to fall into the trap of "gender roles" as if its a bad thing. The fact of the matter is that every couple at some point has to come to an agreement of what roles each of them will adopt in the relationship, whether its more traditional gender roles or a more progressive sharing of responsibility and the reality is that discussion will probably be influenced more by work than anything else. In my case, I work long and unreliable hours and am frequently away from home for extended periods of time. As a result work is going to push me and my GF into more traditional gender roles because I simply am not going to able to reliably fulfill household responsibilities. I've also known other couples where the reverse was true. The wife was an Army Major, so the family adjusted to her work requirements by having the father become an almost stay at home dad. It was unconventional, but it was necessary in order to allow for an even distribution of their responsibilities.
Vasquez on 27/6/2012 at 04:48
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
I'm sorry, evolutionary selection is the ultimate seat of power and women control it.
I must bring a more global point of view here: in many parts of the world that statement is not true. There are many, many countries where women don't control anything, not even their own lives - what kind of education and career they want (if any), who they marry, how many children they'll have etc. And despite their lack of control, there can be a huge load of responsibility on their shoulders, for example the extreme islamistic views where the honor of the whole family is tied to the daughter's hymen.
In Finland/Scandinavia we have things pretty much ok in the legal sense, although there's still plenty of deep-rooted cultural "this is what a Real Woman should be like" -shit floating around, but even many western countries still have big problems concerning equality.
And yes, it goes both ways - men can also be victims of "This is what a Real Man should be!" -traditions.
Also, whether we like it or not, there's the undercurrent of our animal side. The power of evolution can not be completely overlooked when talking things like choosing the spouse and sexual stereotypes. I'm definitely not saying that since there's a thing we can't directly control, there's no point in talking about it at all, what I mean is it should be recognised so it can be addressed. Evolution isn't only physical, it's also behavioral, and since humans are pack animals we have also picked up the societal stuff that gives better results in survival. That seems to have lead to a world which could be a horn of plenty to all, but instead our inner animals are still trying to hoard more and more - much more than we need - and that maintains the age-old role models of homemaker/breadwinner; the way we still look at aggressiveness as a virtue.
I realise it's an utopia to get 7 billion people in to a group effort to change this, but, well, if more people would stop and think and look harder at their motives and choices, things might change in a long span. Of course the more practical things should change first, since it's not easy to "stop and think" if you don't have roof over your head or food for your kids, so I guess we're in a loop...
In short, what I'm saying is that the real "feminism" means - or at least should mean - striving for equality for all people, regardless of sex. Same freedom, same rights, but also the same responsibilities.
june gloom on 27/6/2012 at 05:29
Quote Posted by Papy
It may be "stupid", but the sad truth is that most young women are more attracted to men with power a lot more than they are attracted to men who are sweet and attentive. This is something boys learn very quickly.
BAD DOG. NO BISCUIT.
CCCToad on 27/6/2012 at 05:49
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I must bring a more global point of view here: in many parts of the world that statement is not true. There are many, many countries where women don't control anything, not even their own lives - what kind of education and career they want (if any), who they marry, how many children they'll have etc.
Yes, but those are artificial social constructs designed to remove that power from women and put that power in the hands of the men. I'd wager that its no coincidence that the most backwards are typically the ones where women don't have any control over their reproductive choices.
Quote:
Also, whether we like it or not, there's the undercurrent of our animal side. The power of evolution can not be completely overlooked when talking things like choosing the spouse and sexual stereotypes. I'm definitely not saying that since there's a thing we can't directly control, there's no point in talking about it at all, what I mean is it should be recognised so it can be addressed. Evolution isn't only physical, it's also behavioral, and since humans are pack animals we have also picked up the societal stuff that gives better results in survival. That seems to have lead to a world which could be a horn of plenty to all, but instead our inner animals are still trying to hoard more and more - much more than we need - and that maintains the age-old role models of homemaker/breadwinner; the way we still look at aggressiveness as a virtue.
Here's a link to a youtube video put by an "elderly black gentlemen" explaining why women feel no attraction to the "nice guys", and the reason basically amounts to Vasquez is saying. What and how he says things is probably gonna piss off the more eggheaded members of the forum, but what this guy lacks in book smarts he more than make sup in street smarts.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps3XQy9ZTOA&feature=related)
Koki on 27/6/2012 at 06:02
If it's going to be mostly popular press again, don't bother, as it holds as much validity as my posts
Quote Posted by Vasquez
In short, what I'm saying is that the real "feminism" means - or at least should mean - striving for equality for all people, regardless of sex. Same freedom, same rights, but also the same responsibilities.
This is exactly what happened. Women wanted equal rights, freedoms and responsibilities. They got exactly same rights, freedoms and responsibilities, check the constitution if you have any doubts.
So now not only they have to take care of the household and/or children, they work their ass off just like men do as well.
Was it good for you?
Vasquez on 27/6/2012 at 07:12
Quote Posted by Koki
Was it good for you?
For me, personally, it's perfect (although I don't live under your constitution) :) I definitely wouldn't trade the possibility to
be able to make choices for myself and taking responsibility for them to the "security and easy life" of being a SAHM.
And this is not about how individual couples arrange their lives anyway, it's about giving the freedom to do it however they prefer. If a woman wants to stay home and have 10 kids, that's fine, as long as it's not the
only choice
every woman has.
The western lifestyle of "working one's ass off" is another problem, but obviously it's linked to the equality question. And I believe there's a change happening too, slowly but surely, thanks to the big corporations treating their workers like dirt.
Vivian on 27/6/2012 at 10:31
'Sweet and Attentive' are in no-ones definition of sexy. That's what makes a good friend. Or a good parent. It doesn't make you want to fuck someone. And, by-and-large, the initial stage of a relationship is based on wanting to fuck the other person (yeah, exceptions exist I know, but mostly the whole 'relationship' part comes later). But I think the conflation of sexual and social politics goes too far most of the time - human sexuality should not dictate other aspects of human social interaction. I.E. if someone is capable of and wants to do a job, any job, or whatever, they should be able to do it. We still discuss how attractive or unattractive female politicians, newsreaders, pundits, musicians etc are as if it is nearly as big a consideration as how well they can do what they do. So yeah, there is still a problem, and no, although it is an immediate sub-concious reaction, sexual politics should not be involved. The occasional incidents of female->male sexism posing as some kind of feminism-ish stuff (like most of (
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.itv.com%2Floosewomen%2F&ei=UeHqT5PyHMT5sgb_n5jFBQ&usg=AFQjCNHLoUdxfkg7NTUquqaMTtcxjbLpTg) Loose Women's content) just means that both men and women can act like dicks if they're not careful, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
faetal on 27/6/2012 at 11:30
Quote Posted by Papy
And where did I just shit the logic bed?
Claiming that sexism would be exacerbated by highlighting sexism. Sexism exists before discussions about sexism, so it's fairly safe to say that what drives sexism is something other than discussion of it. Also, because other forms of intolerance have successful evolved to become faux pas due to a shift in cultural attitudes. The primary bits of cultural information are linguistic, so of course discussion has effects, so long as the idea is of a high enough logical quality that people adapt in in increasing numbers over time.
Quote:
It may be "stupid", but the sad truth is that most young women are more attracted to men with power a lot more than they are attracted to men who are sweet and attentive. This is something boys learn very quickly.
I can't get over how much this statement is (a) baseless and (b) simplistic. There are not two types of men. This is why education can make life frustrating - you go through life watching people interpreting information with the grace of a manatee on a skateboard. If the highest quality of information could be derived from people's individual experiences being used to generate statements beginning with "I reckon", then there'd be no need for the sciences.
faetal on 27/6/2012 at 11:37
Quote Posted by nbohr1more
What?
You don't believe in evolution?
I will try to formulate this concept in an "Intelligent Design" compatible language:
1) God created Man and Woman
2) He built them with different attributes according to a divine plan
3) To change the plan, Women must pray to God for less sexism
4) They can help this process by following God's will and marrying the "less sexist" men that God chooses for them
5) Any of the above changes to the plan are an illusion because God is omnipotent and omniscient
:erg:
Hi, I'm a biochemist and you don't understand evolution nearly as well as you think you do. Especially if you think that (a) all of these traits are genetic and (b) changes in these traits will be noticed by the women who take the actions you propose, or even their great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. So don't be lecturing about a subject you don't seem to grasp.
