Women issues

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 5:34 pm

@CE - sadly, I have to agree...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 6:01 pm

@Ysh: I just started a new thread about age discrimination.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 6:44 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
PS Fable, are you sure you don't mean the other way around in your last sentence? Or am I just reading it wrong?

No, you were right, and I fixed it.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 7:51 pm

Posted by SS:
The way I see it is that, whether we get gratitude/appreciation or not(that should be unimportant), are we not one of the most necessary things in any civilization? Men can't get pregnant and give birth. Without us, there would be no people to govern.

Interesting... That was pretty much the argument of the Vichy government in France (that is, during the Nazi Occupation in WW2), which they used to justify making women's employment illegal. Men can't get pregnant and give birth, women can, therefore men should go out to work, and women should stay home and have babies.

There are things that women have an easier time doing than men and things that men have an easier time doing than women. That's not to say that, for most of these things, the man can't do what the woman can do or the woman can't do what the man can do; it just means it's easier for one than the other.

I think the point here (as several people are making) is that to generalise is sexist. Any individual should have the right to be judged on his or her personal merits, not as a member of their gender.

Posted by CE:
Feminism has changed much since the 1960's, and presently there are several different "schools" of feminism. Most feminists I know of, struggle for equal likes Dottie describes, but as is the case in most areas, there are also extremists like the ones Frogus refers to, and unfortunately the extremists often get unproportional amounts of media attention. I have met a few feminists who view men as inferior beings who should be used as much as possible as a revenge for 2000 years of oppression.

Really, you've met people like that? I think for most feminists, the emphasis is on equality, not female superiority. These days, you tend to find a lot more "gender historians" than "feminist historians" - partly a backlash against the radical feminism that had become associated with it. The radical feminists are out there... but as Dottie and CE point out, not that common

Krusader · Post by **Krusader** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:05 pm

? Ok, ok - so most people taking their cars into a garage for attention to body work that has had low impact damage, are women, what does this say about men? that they are less likely to damage their cars? No. Other studies have shown that it is more likely that men will end up in high speed collisions than women - high speed collisions tend to write off the vehicle, hence the vehicle is not brought in for minor repair...

Ah-a! There's another difference. Women are more cautious, while men are more agressive. 'Cause we men tend to prove our masculinity by taking risks (aka driving at blazing speeds). We also tend to be more "I don't give a damn" type.

Another difference: in sports, men are faster, women have more resistence.

Another one: hair is implanted 2 mm more deep in the woman's head than in the male's. That may explain why lots of men are bald and, well I've never seen a woman worrying about losing her hair (unless they have some illness, that is).

Daltonism only affects... ooops! I forgot if it only affects males or females. But it's a gender related illness.

I've never heard of this nicotine study, but it sounds like it does nothing more than confirm what pediatricians and vets have said for years: that drugs have a stronger effect on lower body mass.

Hmm, I don't think it's because of the body mass. Tell u what, I'll look for the article and I'll post it here.

Just one thing: maybe I've been giving examples that glorify men above women, but I'm not trying to say that. I ain't trying to start an argument about which gender is the better or more powerful. As one of you said before, I think that woman and man must complement each other, like a nut and a bolt. Without the nut the bolt is useless and viceversa.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:08 pm

Originally posted by Yshania

I wouldn't go there Krusader I have heard, also, that men have better spatial awareness, but as to maneuvering a car? Ok, ok - so most people taking their cars into a garage for attention to body work that has had low impact damage, are women, what does this say about men? that they are less likely to damage their cars? No. Other studies have shown that it is more likely that men will end up in high speed collisions than women - high speed collisions tend to write off the vehicle, hence the vehicle is not brought in for minor repair...but no gender advantage is offered to women, such as they are more likely to be better able to judge speed and distance...

I would hazard that since it is more likely that an insurance claim by men is higher than that of women, this would explain why men pay a higher premium (at least in the UK)

I've seen studies as well that say what Krusader was speaking of. It has to do with certain differences in the brain, though that is about all I know since it was two semesters ago that I learned about this and it was in Intro to Psychology. Anyway, as to the high speed collisions, wouldn't that have more to do with how men and women are raised? Generally, boys are given more freedom than girls during childhood. They're allowed to get into trouble because learning from their mistakes makes them more of a man, supposedly. Whereas girls are more protected. Thus, generally, men tend to be more careless whereas women would tend to be more careful.

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:39 pm

by Krusader: my ex-gf hated when I cried, she used to say "how can you be so weak? Don't you feel bad crying like a baby? Couldn't you take it like a man ?)

Now that's bad

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 8:43 pm

Originally posted by Krusader

Another one: hair is implanted 2 mm more deep in the woman's head than in the male's. That may explain why lots of men are bald and, well I've never seen a woman worrying about losing her hair (unless they have some illness, that is).

Daltonism only affects... ooops! I forgot if it only affects males or females. But it's a gender related illness.

Colour blindness, or Daltonism , named after the Physicist John Dalton (who was colour blind himself). Colour Blinds can detect colours, but with several deficiencies in seeing the colours.
Only 8% from population are daltons, most of them are men and only 1% are momen. How is the deficiency passed? Daltonism is a genetic character which is carried in heredity on a recesive gene on the X gender chromosome. Therefore women may be carriers of the deficiency and pass it to their sons. A son to a dalton mother will definetly be dalton too, while son of a carrier mother may have a normal sight.

This is what I was talking about before that have 2 X chromosomes protects women genetically.

Male pattern baldness is hair loss that happens because the male hormone testosterone changes the hair roots.

I think all that these examples really prove is that you can find all kinds of reasons to support the idea that a Y chromosome is better or testerone is better or whatever.

I used to be a rec therapist, and one thing I learned from working with all kinds of people with head injuries and what not is that the brain is amazingly adaptable. It can rewire itself much more than was previously assumed, and I think that shows that even if you really believed that women's brains are different or that estrogen affects the brain in a certain way, that the brain is able to learn to adapt and do what it wants. Only in terms of physical strength can I see any jobs that women cannot do...

To give an example of the above, I had a patient who was schizophrenic, then drove a car and hit a concrete embankment. (I always think about that when I'm driving--that somewhere out there is a schizophrenic with a car and a license to drive.) On top of the schizophrenia, he had an open head injury. (An open head injury means that the skull was actually broken and the brain itself was injured--not a concussion). When I met him, all he would do was walk around yelling "Sh-t" and "G-dd-m". He was very frustrated and aggressive and once gave me a bloody nose. He wore diapers and could not feed himself. He did not know his own name. Everyone had pretty much written him off as a lost cause. The psychologist started an intensive day program and he was put in it. I left for central america, and when I came back to visit a year later, this same "lost cause" was feeding himself, going to the bathroom by himself, was no longer aggressive, knew his own name and could write it, and had become very sweet. I was really amazed, and realized then that the brain is just incredibly adaptive.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:00 pm

Just heard this on the radio.
A little bit of info about Womens Day...

"In accordance with International Womens Day, France has unveiled their first female condom machine. Unfortunately womans groups are angry that they are 3 times more expensive than those sold to males."

@ Krusader. Take it like a man j/k.

I've experienced something similar. It definetly puts you in the spot light. I absolutely despise being stereotyped

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 9:15 pm

Originally posted by Georgi
Really, you've met people like that? I think for most feminists, the emphasis is on equality, not female superiority. These days, you tend to find a lot more "gender historians" than "feminist historians" - partly a backlash against the radical feminism that had become associated with it. The radical feminists are out there... but as Dottie and CE point out, not that common

Unfortunately I have met a few - thankfully very few - feminists like that. IMPO this was women who had come to this conclusion by personal, bitter experience and saw this distorted "feminism" as a way to make their feelings acceptable within a more "objective" framework. Any belief system can serve as a justification for personal feelings.

In Sweden, we also have a "school" of feminism called "gender specific feminism" and this particular faction struggles for equalitly in terms of upgrading traditional female characteristics as equally valuable as traditional male characteristics. They focus on the differences between the sexes, and seek a genetic, deterministic explanation for gender differences. One of the most prominent representatives for this kind of "feminism" is a women who made herself famous by going out to media and critisise women who wanted and education and a career, since this is "suppressing your natural womanhood".

She believes modern women must find their "natural roots" again and this means back to stove and give birth to children. Zzzz...Not surprisingly, this school has very few followers

nael · Post by **nael** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 10:16 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

In Sweden, we also have a "school" of feminism called "gender specific feminism" and this particular faction struggles for equalitly in terms of upgrading traditional female characteristics as equally valuable as traditional male characteristics. They focus on the differences between the sexes, and seek a genetic, deterministic explanation for gender differences. One of the most prominent representatives for this kind of "feminism" is a women who made herself famous by going out to media and critisise women who wanted and education and a career, since this is "suppressing your natural womanhood". She believes modern women must find their "natural roots" again and this means back to stove and give birth to children. Zzzz...Not surprisingly, this school has very few followers

i wish i could think of who it was i saw speak of this, but i think it might be more prevalent than some faction in sweden. i am drawing a complete blank in names right now, but there was also a woman a few years back who was making big feminist claims that gossip needed to be considered a science. that it was sexism, and sexism alone that prevented "gynocentric" sciences like gossip from holding their true places as a pure science.

hey...to each their own.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:27 pm

Grrrgngngn!

Originally posted by nael
i wish i could think of who it was i saw speak of this, but i think it might be more prevalent than some faction in sweden. i am drawing a complete blank in names right now, but there was also a woman a few years back who was making big feminist claims that gossip needed to be considered a science. that it was sexism, and sexism alone that prevented "gynocentric" sciences like gossip from holding their true places as a pure science.
hey...to each their own.

The Swedish "gender specific feminism" is a direct import from the US, and I've heard this particular view is much more popular and has more followers in the US than in the more "equality feminism" focused Sweden. Let me just say I hope it's not a frequent view in the US either...I can't even begin to comment on the ideas the person you describe above have, happily I don't think I need to either...