A discussion on this started in the "Romance Mathematics" topic -- perhaps it needs its own topic. I'm eager to hear what people on these boards think about sexism.

First, a definition. This is just *my* definition, feel free to include your own. Sexism is not the recognition that men and women are different -- any fool can see that. Sexism is the belief that the things that make women different, real or imagined, make them not as rational, smart, clean... not as *good* as men. Or the reverse, as I have certainly met sexist women.

Obviously sexism -- like racism, from which it is no different -- can hurt people's feelings. But I think the worst thing about it is that -- like racism -- it creates barriers between people. A perception of others' inferiority prevents you from truly getting to know them, and, in the case of sexism, you would be missing out on half-the-world's worth of opinions.

So tell me. Do you think the people you know are sexist? Is it a problem?

Coming from a small town, I have little experience with negative things like racism. However, sexism is something often talked about, and if one of the teachers in school happens to be sexist, one can be sure that they will not be popular. Personally, I think sexism is silly. Just as silly as any other kind of prejudice. We're all people.

Yes, sexism is a problem. The two sexes ARE different, and rather than celebrate the differences, we try to act like there aren't any. There are some (few) things that one sex can do better than the other most of the time. There are always exceptions.
If a woman and a man are both doing something (a job, participating in an online game) and are equally good at it, then they should be treated the same. This unfortunately is often not the case.
Sexism, bad.
Racism, bad.

Of course I'm sexist. I'm a boy. I like being a boy. I don't want girls in my bathroom when I'm going wee wee.

I think there needs to be a distinction between good and bad sexism. Good sexism is (IMO) things like single sex education, separate public toilets, giving up your seat to a woman on the subway, etc.

Bad sexism is not paying a woman as much as a man for the work she's doing.

I never though't I'd ever agree with Shralph :D Another funny example for bad sexism: A friend of mine studies psychology, this subject has about 80+% female students. Anyway, there are some separate course for weman only - for equality :D Twisted world :D

Weeee! Post #2626! Schnapszahl!

[ August 08, 2002, 17:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

May I ask why the h**l sexual education should be differentiated? That sounds very very silly in my ears, I agree with what else Shralp said. Perhaps not the bus thingy, the only ones I rise for are people that seem to have problem standing.

Methylviolet, why even bother about what people you don't care about, say? As long as they just stick to talking the talk. I ignore them. So what if they make a barrier? The vast majority of men and women, who still like each others company, will stay on the same side of that "barrier", right? Let the sexist morons distance themselves, they aren't worth it anyway; men or women.
William Shakespeare once wrote that even the purest of all snow does not avoid others' taint, so to partially quote yourself. He didn't recognize *your* worth, so he must be *flawed.* The sexists are flawed, not you :)

EDIT; And I think I could crawl to the moon and back before you all agree on, what sexism is and even when it is bad or not; across gender, national, parenting and age differences or misunderstandings. These barriers (passive or rather non-deliberate barriers) don't isolate sexist morons from the sain and good folks and therefore in a way are much worse than the barriers (active or deliberate barriers) sexism "creates". We often call all these passive barriers fruitful and educational though; so how much effort does it take just to ignore the "sexist jokes/patronizing" and the barriers they might create?

[ August 08, 2002, 21:02: Message edited by: ArchAngel ]

These are jut my views: I am not sexist but I am blunt and a bit too harsh with my words.

The sexes are different, and deserve to be treated differently, Job divides are stupid, men and woman are both capable of doing the same amount of work, same quality and same pay. The minds of the different sexes work differently, there is no denying it as it is true, even if outcomes are same/simular it is achieved through different ways.

How boring your all so GOOD and sexism seems to be a foreign word for you.
For me it's fun shocking men with male behaviour. Last time i had tenosynovitis my turkish colleagues asked me if my husband had hit me. And i told them, it was the other way round. Since then they have respect and as i told them maybe i should exercise Kung-Fu again they were real anxious about that. :shake:
Yeah, i'm the female reincarnation of Arnold Schwarzenegger. :p

I made a very extensive reply on this in the "Romance Mathematics" thread, and as I do not want to type all that again, I'll simply debate with what is posted in this thread.

Sexism is not the recognition that men and women are different -- any fool can see that. Sexism is the belief that the things that make women different, real or imagined, make them not as rational, smart, clean... not as *good* as men. Or the reverse, as I have certainly met sexist women.Basically, sexism is saying that one gender is better than another, period. It is also generalizing all members of a gender based on the actions of a few. For instance, saying "All women are vain airheads who spend far too much money on clothing". In actuality, some are, however I know more than a few men who are like this as well. This cannot be applied to all women as a whole, however.

Obviously sexism -- like racism, from which it is no different -- can hurt people's feelings. But I think the worst thing about it is that -- like racism -- it creates barriers between people.However I can completely agree with this statement. When you believe that you are better than someone else, you are likely to act as such, which is the quickest way for resentment to build up.

Some of you are discussing sexual seperation in classes as a positive thing. Supposedly, it is. The best explanation I've heard is that whenever the other gender is not present, it is much easier to concentrate.

As far as giving up your seat on the bus for a woman, I'm unsure whether that would be good or bad. It is generally the gentlemanly thing to do, to show courtesy to a woman that you wouldn't show to a man, but this might offend some women.

Archangel is correct, try not to be offended by the behavior of idiots. They are the ones that will never enjoy a truly fulfilling relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

Oh yeah about the bus thing, i would ask if you think i'm ill or to old to stand. I hate it if men try to help me put on my jacket and i`m really offended if a man wants to help me carrying something f.e. a monitor. I want to have my muscles. But i'm not a usual woman i know.

Yea, you see, that's the problem. Half of women don't have the same ideas about what's sexist and what isn't. Or "ageist", which is modern now, too. I remember offering a seat on the bus to an old, bent lady and she went at me like "do I look so old I can't stand any more?! etc.". Similar things happened quite often when I was being kind to elderly people like that. From then on I never offer seats to any old ladies any more, unless it's 100% obvious that they only see the seat behind me when they look at me. I mean, what for anyway? When I'm old and bent (hopefully just old) I'll ask politely when I need a seat to sit down. I don't know where this idea of automatically jumping out of the seat as soon as you see an older person comes from anyway. I can imagine being offended. What happened to the good old "ask and ye shall receive?".

This is the main problem with ageism, sexism and IMHO, similar general stupidity. Perceptions vary from one individual to another, what someone will take offense at, someone else won't even register. The problem is, the whole world is now centered around those oversensitive people. I'm not saying that some cases are not legitimate (disabled persons for example), but such cases are rare.

[ August 08, 2002, 20:57: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Girl Power is sexist.

Women only lessons are sexist.

The majority of children going to their mother in custady battles is sexist.

Women and Men are diffrent, we are more sutited to diffrent things, for example women are better at sowing because the majoirty of women have thinner hands than men, and most men are better at building work than women becuase men are naturally stronger. When we learn to acept this the world will be a better place.

And finally you see woman clambouring for the same rights as men yet I have never seen a campaign to allow women to fight on the front line in war....

Speaking of jobs -- I just got a job today, a really super-cool one! Yay! I never have to wear the damn interview suit again! :D

That was off topic -- but I had to say it.

Anyway.

What beautiful thoughtful responses. First, I wanted to clarify something I said:
---------------------------------------------
Methylviolet, in poor Kitrax's joke topic: "I have never understood men who make sexist remarks in front of women. Don't they *want* to get laid?"

Ragusa, in that topic: "Well, I think it's time for me to come to the defense of men here, instead of slamming your fun. This is also a sexist generalization, saying that men are incapable of thinking of anything but sex. From my observations, this is sometimes true, sometimes not. It depends on how mature the man is. Some men desire "intellectual stimulation" in addition to the physical side, similar to what psychologists say that women desire."
----------------------------------------------
No, no -- I did not mean to make *that* hoary generalization. (And don't get me started on "what psychologists say!!") I hate that one. Obviously in a world of poets and scientists and everyone else any given man has much more on his mind than sex, as I know from painful experience. The flip side of that stereotype is that women are *not* interested in sex and only "want to be held" -- which, again, is completely false, as I also know from painful experience.

But I believe that, while we are not slaves to our biological imperatives, we are not *deaf* to them either, and that the average person thinks about it quite often. So the point is? I can only speak for myself, but I am inclined to be nice to the men I meet because I might want to sleep with them sometime. Pure and simple. Any male-bashing I might be inclined to do, I'm going to wait until they are out of earshot.

That's all I was saying.

Archangel: "Methylviolet, why even bother about what people you don't care about, say?"
Because it's fun. I get to feel superior when they say something really dumb.

Oblate, you, as always, are too cool for words but I have to disagree with your bus behavior. Never refuse a gift. Any gift, from anyone, ever. There is too little kindness in the world for it to be appropriate to throw people's gifts back in their faces. If some guy wants to give you his seat on a bus, smile and thank him for Crissakes.

Tal, you're right that some people don't hold with the views just stated, but I hope you won't really quit being considerate of old people because some are jerks. I stand up on public transit for pregnant women, people with babies, and old people -- and no one has ever failed to graciously accept.

And really, *civility* is the key issue here -- making disparaging remarks about a group to which someone present belongs is not civil. Telling someone off for trying -- however misguidedly or unnecessarily -- to be *nice* is not civil. Prejudging someone based on some group membership is not civil. And shutting down any discussion of human differences is not civil.

So let's not. More about single-sex education later...

So let's not. More about single-sex education later... I was gonna make a sexist remark on that... But.. Naah, that would spoil the seriousity that is sure to come bouldering in now; like californian waves. Similar posts over and over again... :p

[ August 09, 2002, 11:13: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Women and Men are diffrent, we are more sutited to diffrent things, for example women are better at sowing because the majoirty of women have thinner hands than men, and most men are better at building work than women becuase men are naturally stronger. When we learn to acept this the world will be a better place. I think the key thing here is that MOST women are better at sewing, and MOST men are better at building... personally, I can't do either, while my girlfriend has a real talent for home improvement...

The fundament for both sexism and racism is prejudice. To assume that a woman will need help with carrying her monitor. To assume that a man who has been through a traumatic experience won't be interested in talking about it. Or to assume that a black man driving a nice car must've stolen it.

So the key thing here has got to be to adjust to each individual, and not just make it easier on ourselves by pigeonholing anyone. Of course it's much, much easier for a man to handle the first date with a woman if he strictly follows the standard codes: helping with the coat, the chair, paying the bill, and so on... but it can end up in a disaster if the woman doesn't care for being pampered like that at all.

Some women like it, and some don't. The best way to find out is by asking, or by just being cautious of the other person's reaction when you do something like let the woman go first through the door. All through this post I talk about simple social codes, and mostly about how men should act towards women.. it's just an example, of course the same thing applies for women.

I just can't understand people who claim to be heterosexual but never have anything nice to say about the opposite sex. I have many female friends who claim to be happily married, yet they are always sending "useless husband" and "dumb male" jokes around - consistently enough to show a pattern. I am just bewildered, just as I am when their husband tells jokes that disparage women. If you think it's funny to put someone down, how can you have a happy and loving relationship with them? And anyway, how can anyone bash men? They're so CUTE. Actually, so are women. Vive la difference!

Mr Writer: there are indeed feminist campaigns to get women into front-line combat units in the United States. I believe British women already have the right to serve in combat units, as do Canadian women, which is probably why you don't see women campaigning for that particular right.

MethV:

"Do you think the people you know are sexist? Is it a problem? "

Yes. Nearly everyone I know is sexist. No, it is not a problem; I enter that variable into my algorithm.

Am I sexist? Yes; under the proper conditions.

Let's take a look at a society which is very non-sexist.

Ever been to Israel?

Me neither.

But, I've seen Jewish chits in uniform. And they are:

A. Not immune to the draft. Pregnant or not. Out of the country or not.
B. Standing guard duty with a loaded weapon; West Bank or elsewhere. Right next to their male "co-worker".
C. Have to do a different amount of pushups, but are "trained" to deal with rape as a part of their duty.
D. Just as awesome/deadly/frightening/disgusting as the next male army boy.

Isralie chits are hard; they are hard, and trained to be hard.

Now, think of an entire (260,000,000 people) society of people who can eat their own dead; live off cactus for weeks on end; and kill the enemy without fear or reget.

*WHEW*

I think there are many capable females; I think "environment" plays just as important a role as "genetics"; and I think Isralie chits scare me.

[edit: typo. changed an "x" to a "t".]

[ August 09, 2002, 02:53: Message edited by: ejsmith ]

Obviously, it has to be admitted that genetically, certain kinds of people are better suited to do different things. Be it environmental or genetic, many of the popularly-held stereotypes exist for a reason. Oriental families have a tendency to be more educationally strict. This is not a stereotype, for I do not hold it to all of the kind. However, statistically, overwhelmingly, this is a characteristic of the people. If it were not so, it would not be such a prevelant view.

I do not believe that everyone deserves an equal shake- I believe they deserve an equal chance to prove themselves. Insofar, one should not judge an individual for any reason beyond what can be seen on that basis- individual. That being said, there is such a thing as reverse-bias. An individual that is more qualified than another should not be denied that qualification because the other is in the minority.

Scenario: Were two applicants to apply to a position, without an interview, without their race or sex disclosed, to whom would the job go? Whichever person has the most qualifications that pertain to the job. Say App#1 is such the person. App#1 deserves the job, no? Being entirely blind to the discriminatory factors, yes. Now if #1 is male, and #2 is female? Or vice-versa? #1 is black, #2 is white? Or vice-versa? Should these be the determining factors to a job that has nothing to do with the job description? Or college entrance grounds? Absolutely not. Sadly, measures have had to have been taken to prevent this, and those measures have often overstepped the middle line and ensured jobs or opportunities to those that were not the most qualified- but rather, the lesser of two candidates. And when I say this, I'd to add I've seen it go all ways- jobs given to white kids because they're white, given to black kids because the white shopkeeper doesn't want to be seen as a racist, given to men because they're stronger, or women because they're cleaner. If the latter things are true- the individual is stronger or the woman is cleaner, on a case by case basis- fine. Such inclinations are at the whims of those doing the hiring. That is the way it should be. A person should be able to choose the best candidate. Period. Anything else is purely unbased and idiotic.

In summary- to make assumptions based on things other than the individual- such as purely being "white" (i'm more of a peachish/tan) or "black" (i've never seen someone who was ACTUALLY black. unless they were burned... no offense to any burn victims.) is horrible. But at the same level of regard, IF that person proves to be inferior in performance to another- they do not deserve a lift up. That is just like discriminating against the other person. Besides- who knows? I'm sure they can do inferior work if asked to do so...

Amon-Ra

[ August 09, 2002, 06:10: Message edited by: Amon-Ra ]

Just to interject *my* definition of sexism:

To let a person's sex in any way influence the actions or potential for future actions.

The policy which allows women two more minutes than men on the mile run required during basic training in the Army/Navy/Air Force in the US is sexist.

So is saying that a divorced family's children should live with their mother because she has greater nurturing qualities.

So is disallowing women to participate in frontline combat units.

So is saying only men should work as referees in pro basketball games.

So is maternity leave.

Etcetera...sexism is a tricky thing.

You know people, this isn't much of a debate as most of you people (dare I say all ) seem to have the same opinion :hahaerr:

Actually sprite women arnt allowed to fight on the front line, or go into the royal marines, and quite a few divisions of the army.

Women are permitted into the infrantry in Canada (ie, front-line units). And also, I believe, in the RCAF as well.

Take heart ladies! Once cloning is perfected, men are unnecessary.

Uh, Jack when cloning is perfected women are unnecesary too.

:coffee:

Only when you can gestate a human outside of the womb. That is not possible yet and is not necessary to perfect cloning.

Oh, Jack -- don't be sad. There is one thing you guys can do that will always be necessary.

*Besides* take out the trash.

"The policy which allows women two more minutes than men on the mile run required during basic training in the Army/Navy/Air Force in the US is sexist."

Yeah. I used to think the same thing. Until I really sat down (actually, I think I was working) and thought about it.

There aren't any female Seals. It just doesn't work like that. Evolution drew the line on that one. Deal with it.

But, that's not to say they aren't in shape. Those standards were proposed by MD's, who took a look at a woman who was 'in-shape' and a man who was 'in-shape'. The median became policy. That means, specifically, men and women will always have different 'standards'. It needs be that way.

I still think women combat pilots are the answer. Men on the ground, and women in the air. Women put on pressure suits, and breathe Lox, just a well as men. They can flip 30mm rounds at tanks, and guide AGM-65's just as well as the next fool. Muscle isn't the key; concentration is. And they are just as cocky, and sexually agressive, as all the other concentrating fly-boys.

Hell, if being cocky and sexually aggressive is all it takes to be a pilot, I can think of several SPers who should sign up.

Actually, it takes a lot more. Physical stamina, extreme hand-eye coordination, etc. And, like it or not, women on average are less likely to possess these qualities. Studies have been done by "them," but I'm not going to bother to look 'em up.

This isn't the reason that women shouldn't be allowed into the cockpit, as it refers to an average and there will be exceptions to that rule.

There's a whole other basket of reasons women in combat is a bad idea. And they have more to do with men than women.

Shralp, I agree with you about women in combat. (And bite me, by the way!) Though I started a thread on sexism, I don't necessarily agree with everything so-called feminists would put in that category, and that is one. Women in combat is a bad idea.

I don't believe that the the legitimate differences in body and mind -- and dare I say it, social roles -- should be countermanded by some fiat. For example, I am a biologist and a mother. I am as good a biologist as a guy with my experience, but a better *mother* than he could be. That is, in fact, the most important job I do. Not that curing cancer is unimportant, but no one but me could raise my children to be assets to humanity as well, and being a biologist does not impair my ability to do that job (much :( ). Being in combat, even aside from the likelihood of dying, *would.*

The reason men are bigger and stronger is to protect women. Duh, biological fact. Why it would benefit women to compete for *that* role is beyond me.

Here in Los Angeles, there are no female firefighters. Ah ha! Discrimination! Well, no. To pass the firefighter practical exam, you have to carry about 50 kilos up a ladder, and no woman has yet been able to do that for the test. Unfair? No! It is a legitimate requirement of the job. Little weak guys are also barred.

People *will* muddy a discussion of sexism (bad) with legitimate differences between the sexes (good).

"Physical stamina, extreme hand-eye coordination, etc. And, like it or not, women on average are less likely to possess these qualities"

(insert some really maniacal laugh, here)

Schrapler, if I hadn't read your other posts in other threads, I would think you were new.

News Flash: Piloting an F-18 (the new E's and F's can break mach 2!!) does not take "qualities" outside the average female's abilities. Get this...

You've seen pilots in combat. Guess who trained them?

Chicks.

T-38's. T-46's. F/A-18's. Probably not A's and B's, but definately C's through F's. Bombing missions, air-to-air. There's a chick shooting them down and teaching them how to actually land the craft. And, no; they don't cave in the gear when they land. No, they aren't using ACLS everytime either, but they're trained to use it. Yes, they've made 100's of night carrier landings too. Yes, they have the little star on their cuffs signifying a "line officer", too.

Oh, yeah. Whilist we are perusing the job description section, anyone ever been to see a female surgeon (or physician, for that matter; Medical *or* Osteopathic)?

MethV:
I understand your position. It's not meant to be fun. I'm just saying that sexism exists, and will continue to exist, until women want to change it. There's a lot of girls who just want the benefits, without the resposibility or risks. I'm not trying to justify anything to you, here. I'm just making the call as I continue to see it happening...

Umm.. OK, ejsmith. Your last paragraph to me was kind of a non-sequiter. I'm not sure if you agree with me or with Shralp or neither or *what.* Clarify, won't you?

"I'm just saying that sexism exists, and will continue to exist, until women want to change it. There's a lot of girls who just want the benefits, without the resposibility or risks."

Of *what*? Common civility? Sexism? Being a guy? :confused:

Methylviolet, in poor Kitrax's joke topic: "I have never understood men who make sexist remarks in front of women. Don't they *want* to get laid?"

Ragusa, in that topic: "Well, I think it's time for me to come to the defense of men here, instead of slamming your fun. This is also a sexist generalization, saying that men are incapable of thinking of anything but sex. From my observations, this is sometimes true, sometimes not. It depends on how mature the man is. Some men desire "intellectual stimulation" in addition to the physical side, similar to what psychologists say that women desire."Methyl, I was the one that said this, and I still stand by it.

But I believe that, while we are not slaves to our biological imperatives, we are not *deaf* to them either, and that the average person thinks about it quite often. So the point is? I can only speak for myself, but I am inclined to be nice to the men I meet because I might want to sleep with them sometime. Pure and simple. Of course. It's instinctive as it is needed for the survival and prosperity of our species. However, does that mean that you won't be nice to someone if you don't want to sleep with them? I doubt it.

Tal is correct. I've had women smack me for offering to help them out or even just having me be kind to them. Are some women so prejudiced that they are offended by the idea that a man is just trying to be nice and not having an ulterior motive?

making disparaging remarks about a group to which someone present belongs is not civil.Doesn't this kind of fit the definition of prejudice, which is what we are discussing here? It's obviously a stereotype, forming opinions about a whole group on opinions of a few.

Slim Shogun, men actually can take maternity leave now. I know it doesn't make any sense, but I'm paying men that went on this.

The reason men are bigger and stronger is to protect women. Duh, biological fact. Why it would benefit women to compete for *that* role is beyond me.Because some women carry the view that nature is sexist and that all the sexes should be the same. Wouldn't that make us all hermaphrodites who reproduce using asexual reproduction? You're a biologist, perhaps you can tell us the advantages of our form of reproduction as opposed to an amoeba's, other than producing more variety, which is obviously what these feminists are trying to remove.

I'm just saying that sexism exists, and will continue to exist, until women want to change it. There's a lot of girls who just want the benefits, without the resposibility or risks.I'm not sure I understand this either. What benefits are you referring to ejsmith?

IF that person proves to be inferior in performance to another- they do not deserve a lift up.I agree. I never did understand the reasoning behind the concept of affirmative action and never will. All people have the potential to be superior to another in some area. Why they are not willing to at least try to be is beyond me.

"Are some women so prejudiced that they are offended by the idea that a man is just trying to be nice and not having an ulterior motive?"

Well, sure. Some women are just jerks. Did you think only guys are qualified to be jerks, you SEXIST PIG? :D

Methylviolet, while I agree with almost everything else you've said in this thread, I think you are on thin ice with the idea that because men are "bigger or stronger" because of a biological imperative to protect the mothers of their children, that women should never compete for roles involving being big or strong (please correct me if I've just misinterpreted your intention here). Once upon a time that was almost the identical argument used against educating women- men are smarter so they can take care of women, how dare women compete for that role?

A rare few women are significantly stronger than the average man. You can say that from a genetic perspective these women are failures (if you don't mind me running to the bathroom to sob :p ) but it doesn't change the fact that they can often do a "man's job" better than many men. Do you think they should be barred from doing so, if they really want to? I served in an infantry unit and did better on the exact same physical tests than 2/3 of the men. If I had wanted to continue pursuing that as a career, do you really believe that I should not have had the right to? If so, I'd be interested to hear your justification of that position.

I am really sorry, Rastor :aaa: -- and sorry, Ragusa, if you read this! Few small things are as irritating as people getting your name wrong.

But! Leave from work at the time you have or adopt a child is "parental" leave, and it is absolutely appropriate for both the mother and the father. Babies are important, more important than anything you hired that guy to do. So pfft.

Sprite: "because men are "bigger or stronger" because of a biological imperative to protect the mothers of their children, that women should never compete for roles involving being big or strong (please correct me if I've just misinterpreted your intention here). Once upon a time that was almost the identical argument used against educating women- men are smarter so they can take care of women, how dare women compete for that role? "

Well, no, of course I did not take it that far, Sprite. In my firefighter example, it was a case where no woman had (yet) been big and strong *enough* to do the job, and there were those who thought the job requirements should be lowered so that more women could meet them. I cannot support that. Objective standards that play to one sex's characteristics, if they *are* objective, cannot be discriminatory because everyone is free to compete. Which is all we ask, right?

But! Where *I* would be discriminatory, if it were up to me, would be in barring women from direct fire combat positions and ensuring that they are never drafted. I think the continuance of the species is important, and women must be left alive to ensure that continuance. And I think that men's biological role is not some now-discredited thing that needs eliminating from our modern sensibilities. Biology is not always destiny -- and individuals can and have been every conceivable way, with every combination of interests and abilities -- but on a societal scale, having women fight wars and men take care of babies seems like... the long way around.

Perhaps even there I go further than you would,
Sprite -- I admit it sounds almost (gasp) conservative. I worry, though, that in our search for personal growth, there is a common sense about men and women that is lost. We are about preserving diversity, right? Not, in Shralp's phrase -- homogenizing the genders.

Wouldn't that make us all hermaphrodites who reproduce using asexual reproduction? You're a biologist, perhaps you can tell us the advantages of our form of reproduction as opposed to an amoeba's, other than producing more variety, which is obviously what these feminists are trying to remove. Sprite -- I admit it sounds almost (gasp) conservative. I worry, though, that in our search for personal growth, there is a common sense about men and women that is lost. We are about preserving diversity, right? Not, in Shralp's phrase -- homogenizing the genders.Unfortunately, Methyl, there are many women out there that want to eliminate the diversity between the genders, and yes, homogenzize them. Although, I don't understand how Shralp was saying that. I was saying it as almost sarcasm in a way to defend my position that the genders should enjoy the differences between themselves.

Well, sure. Some women are just jerks. Did you think only guys are qualified to be jerks, you SEXIST PIG?No! I didn't mean to say that at all. I'm a man, I was giving the male point of view. Of course women can be jerks, just as males can. Emotionally, both are actually pretty similar (although somebody is probably going to disagree with me here). Actually, I've met more jerk women than men. What I don't understand is why some people snap at you for trying to be nice to them.

barring women from direct fire combat positions and ensuring that they are never drafted. I think the continuance of the species is important, and women must be left alive to ensure that continuance.So must men, Methyl. Or did all your cloning and such remove that factor from the human form of reproduction.

And I think that men's biological role is not some now-discredited thing that needs eliminating from our modern sensibilities. Biology is not always destiny -- and individuals can and have been every conceivable way, with every combination of interests and abilities -- but on a societal scale, having women fight wars and men take care of babies seems like... the long way around.Yes, well, if only men fight wars and most get killed, won't that leave only a few men left with a large number of women? Sounds like either the population will go down well before it climbs again, or leave each man to impregnate several women, which although it may be appealing to some, doesn't sit quite right in the eyes of this guy.

Well, Rastor -- we all must do our duty. I hope you would not shirk it if the time came.

But seriously folks, I would have thought it obvious that the *necessary* male contribution to reproduction is ten minutes or so of his time. The necessary female contribution is much longer, right? If she is killed at any point during her pregnancy -- nine looong months -- or, arguably, in the first year of the child's life -- there goes her contribution. We have seen, again and again throughout history, wars decimate the male population and the society rebound just fine.

We probably agree Methyl, just making sure others don't misunderstand :)

Rebound in numbers, yes we do... If men can have sex/reproduce and go to war and die that is just fine. genetically. If they die before reproduction it is just as bad as if a woman died, right?
You are a fellow molecular biologist. I dunno how far, but I am sure you are confident with the term genetic drift. Which is not good when only (lets exaggerate to understand) 100 or so men, American men, survived to reproduce next to millions of men.

[ August 12, 2002, 00:42: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

Excellent point, Nobleman -- you are so right. Though all these men are not strictly speaking necessary, there is a good reason to keep them around. Expecially if it were true that convicts, mental patients, the ill, and those otherwise unfit to fight comprised that group of 100 men!

Interesting drift, we would have. An odd reverse selection in warlike societies, would it be.

You seem however to have run away with an idea that I advocate war for thinning the male herd, or that I am philosophical about the decimation of the male half of the population because of their superfluity for breeding purposes.

No. Not so. I like men and I hate war. I was attempting to support my views on women in combat, which I offered in support of an idea that the recognition of real sexual differences did not constitute sexism.

No, no. (shudder) More men is better.

Edited spelling

[ August 12, 2002, 11:16: Message edited by: Methylviolet ]

I am sorry if it seemed like I was trying to advocate anything on your behalf. I was merely making sure we agree on the genetics :)

ejsmith, it's cute when you try to use laughter condescendingly. No, wait. Not cute. I meant "cheap." Yeah, that's it.

Chick trainers. Wow. That means a lot. Not.

Go back and read what I wrote. Then compare carefully your assumptions. See how different they are? Good boy.

Sorry to misinterpret that Methyl. You're correct, the female contribution is much greater in the birth process. However, isn't having a father figure around important for the healthy emotional development of children?

I honestly have no opinion on the women in combat. A massive war would be just as likely to decimate the civilian population as the soldiers, leaving us with the same situation had the women actually been in combat. Personally, I'd like to see neither gender required to do service time or be drafted, instead, they join the army if they want to.

Why enrage ?
Methyl do you know Bachofens "Mutterrecht". It's a very profound book about the ancient matriarchic societies.
If i were a man ;) i wouldn't have liked this matriarchic stuff too.
It's not true, that all men have more muscles then women. Depends on training.
But yeah because of our menstruation were a bit slowed, and always getting children...
But if we wanted, we could rule the world :p and that explains the fears of old societies/cultures, old enough to remember in a way the ancient matriarchate.
I love being a woman. I think it's the best gender to have. There have to be some men too. :lol: Well don't mind.
You can call it female sexism but ... i think Strindberg was right also. And he was a macho. But i can't recall the name of his book and i have no link to it, so maybe by new laws (in this forum)i have to vanish into thin air.
And "SCUM" by Valerie Solanas. Which describes what negative effects patriarchy can have in a modern society.
I'm not feministic, just curious about psyche and society. Yeah, i swear.

Rastor, you have made an excellent point. The way warfare has been practiced over the last century, it's not much less dangerous to be a civilian than to be a soldier if your country is under attack. Therefore the idea of keeping women out of the army to ensure their survival is weakened. Dresden and Hiroshima were full of women and children- most of the male residents were off at war when the cities were decimated. I'd rather be on the front lines with a gun or at the very least a first aid kit, DOING something about the war, than sitting at home fretting over my gentle menfolk and waiting for a bomb to drop.

Aside: I was just kidding about the sexist pig thing. I was trying to be ironic. Hope it didn't hurt your feelings.

I joined the army and spent 3 years preparing myself to make a valuable contribution if ever this wonderful country that adopted me should be attacked. Partly I did this because I was sick at heart to watch my male friends - those who were also from France originally - surrender their citizenship rather than go home to spend 9 months doing military service. What a sad thing- I criticise everything that is wrong with all the countries I call my own but wouldn't hesitate to defend any of them if they were under attack. I don't think the fact that I have ovaries absolves me of responsibility to do so.

I'm interested in this book of which you speak.

So far as I've read, societies have been matrilineal but never matriarchal in the sense of the women of the society holding any sort of governing power.

Many Indian societies and African societies are true matriachies. I agree though, I cannot think of any civilization that was a true matriachy either. Many did allow women to hold positions of power, however. I guess our modern day civilization is still behind these antedeluvian cultures.

I joined the army and spent 3 years preparing myself to make a valuable contribution if ever this wonderful country that adopted me should be attacked. Partly I did this because I was sick at heart to watch my male friends - those who were also from France originally - surrender their citizenship rather than go home to spend 9 months doing military service. What a sad thing- I criticise everything that is wrong with all the countries I call my own but wouldn't hesitate to defend any of them if they were under attack. I don't think the fact that I have ovaries absolves me of responsibility to do so.I have no problem with women in the military. However, in the US, men are required to register for the draft. Women are not. I personally think that either both should be required or neither should. One of my cousins has a dream of being a Navy SEAL, but since she's female, that's never going to happen. I think she should at least be able to try out, if that's what she wants to do.

Wait. Your first two sentences seem to contradict each other.

What African or Indian cultures are matriarchal?

Rastor:

Actually, she can. But the catch here is, not a single one has actually survived boot camp. If you're already rated, or unrated for that matter, and you're through boot camp, you have to be 'nominated' by a commanding officer. After that, it's just a plane ride away from Budswiser. Which just doesn't happen due to the strength side. Endurance isn't the problem, raw strength is.

Anyway, I'm putting Godwin's Law at .95 on this one so far...

Hmm, now that's a new one for me. Everything I've read said that being male is one of the requirements. Guess you really can learn something new all the time.