Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

True, but you'll need to pick one poison. On the one side, you say its their body, their decision, no one should be forced to carry a baby if they cant afford it. And as a poor rice farmer in china, the difference between a daughter and a son mightbe the difference between being above or below a starvation line. So, while i'd never do this, I can totally understand this.

No one should be forced to carry a baby if they don't want to, not if they can't afford it. If a poor woman wants to have a baby she can have a baby- won't be easy but it's her choice.

 

It's different, however, when a child is wanted and the only thing that decides it's fate is what gender it comes outs. It shouldn't matter what the outcome is, but it does in that society because that's how they have been taught- that men have more worth and are able to do work while women are a drain and are only good for making more babies. So While, again, it may make sense it is still no excuse.

Share this post


Link to post

True, but you'll need to pick one poison. On the one side, you say its their body, their decision, no one should be forced to carry a baby if they cant afford it. And as a poor rice farmer in china, the difference between a daughter and a son mightbe the difference between being above or below a starvation line. So, while i'd never do this, I can totally understand this.

The society itself is sexist-the idea that men work, and women just make more babies. Women are perfectly capable of doing work, and men could move into their wives homes instead of of the other way around. I don't think just saying "well, that's how their society is, so what are you going to do" is helping in any way.

 

Basically, aborting female fetuses selectively is a symptom of other problems caused by sexism. I don't think just shrugging and saying "oh well, it's their lifestyle" is an acceptable answer. I don't support trying to ban the practice (it's either going to happen anyways or will affect pregnant people seeking abortions for other reasons), but instead trying to correct the underlying problems.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I think that the average chinese farmer is a lot less sexist than the average us citizen. Why? Because they have no time for that crap. Everyone in the family has to work as much as they can, gender being irrelevant. They'd happily have sons and daughters, but the regime told them to pick only one, when culture used to be 4-6. Its no big wonder they picked the best workforce they could get.

Share this post


Link to post

Whitebaron, what you say is very true.

 

However, I am talking about those who do NOT need to farm and yet still do such things, because there are a lot of those people.

 

I'm actually not at all talking about the Chinese farmers, instead about those who are wealthy enough to stop farming and start becoming urban, or have become urban. Many of them still do it, too, and quite a lot are sexist against females because they used to work on farms and stuff. However, they do not anymore, and there is no excuse for people like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Wow... just wow. How can they do nothing? Aren't parents and students outraged by this?

Yeah, idk. Her friend's mom made her leave, but others stay for some reason.

 

I have another friend who goes to a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL where the principal tried to change the girls' uniform to some super tight, deathly revealing outfit. And the guys also feal girls'.....um....girl places.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with China and females is its own culture. The - quite literal - shortage of females in China is a direct cause of their own cultural values. The one child law exacerbates the problem - when you're only allowed one child and one gender is clearly valued more highly in general, it is more likely that a family is going to want the more valuable child. This doesn't make it OKAY, but the logic isn't really flawed so I can understand WHY.

 

Yeah, idk. Her friend's mom made her leave, but others stay for some reason.

 

I have another friend who goes to a CHRISTIAN SCHOOL where the principal tried to change the girls' uniform to some super tight, deathly revealing outfit. And the guys also feal girls'.....um....girl places.

 

Is there a higher authority that can be reported to? Principal, superintendent? This is actually sexual harassment and frankly if I were those girls I'd go straight to the cops because any harassment is intolerable.

 

I'm not surprised that males at a Christian school fear lady parts, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse were true. Sex and sexuality seem to still be largely taboo amongst the religious.

 

The society itself is sexist-the idea that men work, and women just make more babies. Women are perfectly capable of doing work, and men could move into their wives homes instead of of the other way around.

 

US culture is still somewhat sexist against females, too, though, so we aren't entirely free to judge China in particular. Women STILL earn less for the same amount of work, and that can still depend on what color you are (white women iirc are at the top of the earning tier).

 

I don't think just saying "well, that's how their society is, so what are you going to do" is helping in any way.

 

I don't think just shrugging and saying "oh well, it's their lifestyle" is an acceptable answer.

 

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem - I agree with you. It will never change anything if people keep shrugging and crying "culture!" in response to sexism, among other things. It takes action from the people - especially those affected - to change it.

Edited by Infinis

Share this post


Link to post
The problem with China and females is its own culture. The - quite literal - shortage of females in China is a direct cause of their own cultural values. The one child law exacerbates the problem - when you're only allowed one child and one gender is clearly valued more highly in general, it is more likely that a family is going to want the more valuable child. This doesn't make it OKAY, but the logic isn't really flawed so I can understand WHY.

 

 

 

Is there a higher authority that can be reported to? Principal, superintendent? This is actually sexual harassment and frankly if I were those girls I'd go straight to the cops because any harassment is intolerable.

 

I'm not surprised that males at a Christian school fear lady parts, and I wouldn't be surprised if the reverse were true. Sex and sexuality seem to still be largely taboo amongst the religious.

 

 

 

US culture is still somewhat sexist against females, too, though, so we aren't entirely free to judge China in particular. Women STILL earn less for the same amount of work, and that can still depend on what color you are (white women iirc are at the top of the earning tier).

 

 

 

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem - I agree with you. It will never change anything if people keep shrugging and crying "culture!" in response to sexism, among other things. It takes action from the people - especially those affected - to change it.

Yeah, the principal was fired. And lol i meant feel. The a was just some misspell derpage. And I know an eleven year old who said that on his first day of school, he and all the other boys were given condems.....these are eleven year olds. O.o

Share this post


Link to post

I grew up in a matriarchal Native American clan so I haven't experienced much gender discrimination in my life. Most of it is the kind of "roll your eyes and walk away" stuff. I do have SERIOUS problems with the whole "guys can go shirtless but girls can't" issue. It's the SAME BODY PARTS. Ours are just fleshier and have milk-producing glands in them. This might be due to my Native upbringing though. Clothes aren't too big of an issue with my clan on private land. The kids run around nude and most of us (with the exception of an older woman with eczema, and a man with frequent skin cancer) go skinny dipping in the summer.

Share this post


Link to post

I maintain the view that radfems only damage the feminist movement. They are not feminists - they are misandrists.

 

(PIV?)

Share this post


Link to post
Possible TW

Warning for discussion of sexuality; no vulgar content.

 

What do you guys think of radfems?

blink.gif I... I think that my short-version opinion on that article is not in any way safe for work or children.

 

I disagree with its "fact" and that PIV is inherently and intentionally harmful to women just because it can cause pregnancy. I disagree with the assertion that penetration is not necessary for conception, since if the sperm can't make it past the initial layer of hostile-to-sperm territory within the vagina (meant to keep bacteria and such out), conception is impossible. Pregnancy is not intended to truly harm the mother; in fact, harm to the mother (even via the pregnancy) makes the fetus less likely to be carried to term and born healthy. Pregnancy may indeed be risky, and may indeed lead to harm, but nobody tells skydivers or submariners or crab fisherman that they're doing what they do because society has forced them to even if they think it was their dream to carry out.

 

In addition, I (and the other women I know) have not been brainwashed to think any of it is fun or enjoyable; the sensations that my body is feeling at those times are not put there by my husband or The Patriarchy. It is my body and I know it better than anyone else, so I know when I'm feeling pleasure just as well as I know when I'm feeling pain. I wouldn't desire or instigate it if it was painful, uncomfortable, or harmful to me, and I certainly do desire and instigate more often than this article says is okay. dry.gif (Note: Not saying that more than once a month is required or even desirable for all women, just me.)

 

I also notice that the article leaves out sexual methods that put women in the "dominant" position. There positions where the woman can control the force and pace, and there are dynamics in which the man is submissive to the instructions of his partner, and they are totally ignored for the purposes of that article. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree with the assertion that penetration is not necessary for conception, since if the sperm can't make it past the initial layer of hostile-to-sperm territory within the vagina (meant to keep bacteria and such out), conception is impossible.

Sexual penetration is not required for conception, though. There are artificial means to cause pregnancy that don't require penile-vaginal intercourse.

 

Aside from that, that article is just... No words, really. I have none to describe the sheer... I don't know, idiocy, mabye? of it.

 

 

Radfems like that need to reevaluate their views because they drive people FROM the cause--male and female alike. And not for good reason. Misandry is not the answer to misogyny, and yet it runs rampant among them.

 

 

Not to mention that a decent number of them are also highly transphobic.

Share this post


Link to post
In addition, I (and the other women I know) have not been brainwashed to think any of it is fun or enjoyable; the sensations that my body is feeling at those times are not put there by my husband or The Patriarchy. It is my body and I know it better than anyone else, so I know when I'm feeling pleasure just as well as I know when I'm feeling pain. I wouldn't desire or instigate it if it was painful, uncomfortable, or harmful to me, and I certainly do desire and instigate more often than this article says is okay. dry.gif (Note: Not saying that more than once a month is required or even desirable for all women, just me.)

This. If I want to engage in specific kind of activities, then it is my want, not "societal imprinting". Women can have very strong sex drives, too. And the "other kinds" of sexual activities are unfulfilling for many.

 

(And not even "the first time" was painful in any sense... Not to mention that women actually don't even have any kind of definite barriers somewhere - some have a bit of extra skin that might tear a little, but that's it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Sexual penetration is not required for conception, though. There are artificial means to cause pregnancy that don't require penile-vaginal intercourse.

You are correct. However, I was going from the assumption of natural as opposed to artificial means, since sex and reproduction didn't develop with medical assistance in mind.

 

But yes, echoing the sentiment that this kind of person is hugely responsible for the aversion that more moderate individuals have to calling themselves feminists. It would equate them with the rabid misandry that the more vocal and extreme members are spouting, and that's not what they want at all. They just want equality, not female supremacy as revenge for being oppressed.

Share this post


Link to post

Possible TW

Warning for discussion of sexuality; no vulgar content.

 

What do you guys think of radfems?

Read back trhough this thread and see previous discussion about trans issues & rad fems. I'm no going to rehash it, because it's very triggering and draining.

 

Poked around a bit on that blog - and I would like to say that this particular one saddens me deeply. http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/06/23/...sts_exclude=103

 

Men if you want to help, stop eixsting. Honestly, the RadFem movement actively demonises half the human population, and would like to see total segregation of the two (so women are never exposed to men). They also appear to take the position that anyone who doesn't agree with them is still so traumatised by men that they can't make a rational decision.

 

So.

 

Not RadFem = not rational, can't make your own mind up because you've been brainwashed.

 

RadFems should therefore campaign for you, wether you want it or not, because you can't make your own decisions.

 

I'm sorry, but how is this *any* different to the brush they like to paint all men with?

Edited by TikindiDragon

Share this post


Link to post

Uh. Wow. Y'know I may not be interested in relationships with anyone, but I don't want men to *stop existing* and I don't think segregation from them is the answer. Sexism kind of goes both ways anyway - women continue to help objectify themselves in some ways (looking at you, modeling industry) - so women have to stop perpetuating these things too for sexism to actively be stopped.

 

That article...I only got through a couple of paragraphs of it but I'm so confused. How is intercourse always rape? That doesn't even make sense logically to begin with. o-O Pregnancy isn't even a guaranteed cause of sex, and some women actively want to have sex and/or be pregnant, so how is that always rape?

 

Not all men are bad, jeez.

Share this post


Link to post

all men are bad rapists. Having Sex at all is proof of our oppression. That's what rad fem is all about.

Share this post


Link to post

That article...I only got through a couple of paragraphs of it but I'm so confused. How is intercourse always rape? That doesn't even make sense logically to begin with. o-O Pregnancy isn't even a guaranteed cause of sex, and some women actively want to have sex and/or be pregnant, so how is that always rape?

I believe it's similar to underage sex. They believe all women have been groomed(brainwashed) to want and accept PIV but since they have been brainwashed to want it it's equivalent to women not being competent enough to be able to consent to it. They don't consider women capable of making that choice if they've been brainwashed to say yes.

 

Let's say I get you as a baby and I raise you to think that me punching you in the face is good and pleasurable. If someone asks you if they can punch you in the face and you say "yes", was that really your choice, or was that a result of the brainwashing I put you through and without brainwashing you would have said 'no'?

 

All this seems to assume that if women were raised in an atmosphere where there were no men they would not naturally seek vaginal penetration. I disagree with that. But I find the views expressed in the article and comments to be interesting.

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post
You are correct. However, I was going from the assumption of natural as opposed to artificial means, since sex and reproduction didn't develop with medical assistance in mind.

Pregnancy is possible during natural sexual activity and without penetration. My sister - a doctor - even refers to the flying sperm. As she says - they are "determined little ***s that can get anywhere." Any "spillage" anywhere near the vagina can lead to pregnancy. As many who believe in withdrawal have discovered to their cost.

 

I also object to radfems. In fact I am no feminist. I am a people-ist. There are thoroughly offensive people on both sides. That said, culture is still slanted in favour of men - and while it was slowly starting to equalise a little, is now slipping backwards. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I believe it's similar to underage sex. They believe all women have been groomed(brainwashed) to want and accept PIV but since they have been brainwashed to want it it's equivalent to women not being competent enough to be able to consent to it. They don't consider women capable of making that choice if they've been brainwashed to say yes.

 

Let's say I get you as a baby and I raise you to think that me punching you in the face is good and pleasurable. If someone asks you if they can punch you in the face and you say "yes", was that really your choice, or was that a result of the brainwashing I put you through and without brainwashing you would have said 'no'?

 

All this seems to assume that if women were raised in an atmosphere where there were no men they would not naturally seek vaginal penetration. I disagree with that. But I find the views expressed in the article and comments to be interesting.

But, see, this is what it boils down to - they believe all women are not competant enough to make an informed choice. They believe that it's the fault of all men that this is the case, true, but it does boil down to the simple concept that if you don't agree with them you are brainwashed and incapable of making rational choices.

 

I... fail to understand how that's any different to the system they're supposedly fighting against.

Share this post


Link to post
I also object to radfems. In fact I am no feminist. I am a people-ist. There are thoroughly offensive people on both sides. That said, culture is still slanted in favour of men - and while it was slowly starting to equalise a little, is now slipping backwards. sad.gif

This is no big wonder. If you get attacked whatever you do, you take precautions to protect yourself. This goes for men and women, alike.

 

Take for example some laws, that go like: "If men and women have equal skills applying for a job, you HAVE to take the woman." Isn't that the very grounds on which women will have to prove even harder that they have the same skills?

Share this post


Link to post

Tell me - how can you who keep saying there's no discrimination try and say the world is not slanted against women ? Sexual activity and the rest are not the real issue. Those of us women who enjoy penetrative sex (and even who INSTIGATE it !) can tell you that. But THIS:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ntService=print

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...en-9059544.html

 

(I hope the links stay up long enough for people to read them...)

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
Tell me - how can you who keep saying there's no discrimination try and say the world is not slanted against women ? Sexual activity and the rest are not the real issue. Those of us women who enjoy penetrative sex (and even who INSTIGATE it !) can tell you that. But THIS:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...ntService=print

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...en-9059544.html

 

(I hope the links stay up long enough for people to read them...)

thats a long ongoing series of the newspaper, so its likely to stay.

 

but - I have to ask - did they EVER try it the other way? abortion of boys due to them having already a firstborn boy or two boys?

 

If not, I cannot take such a study seriously. The overall statistics for the UK seem to be fine. Quoting a nobel laureate is all well, but HER statement is entirely different to what the newspaper is trying to bring across. Because basically, she says: "Its worth studying more".

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.