52 replies to this topic

[Grumps]

rummandcoke, on Jan 23, 2011 - 01:43, said:

Because, again, women have the intelligence and the capacity to do so. Not utilizing that is a huge loss to the world. If every human being, male and female alike, were educated to their full potential, the world would be a much better place.

So really if your argument is that there is unused potential, shouldn't your focus be on both genders equally? "Full potential" is theoretically infinite, so in reality both men and women are basically in the same boat, there current difference insignificant to their infinite potential. And why do you think people reaching their "full potential" is good? What does that mean? For this reply I'm going to mean excellence in physical and mental abilities. I don't really think that'd be much better than it is now. It sounds so homogeneous to me. But that's almost a different matter entirely.

What I mean to say is that underachieving isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are you achieving your "maximum potential"? Are you coming even close? Are you even making a significant effort? I'm sure as hell not, and I'm happy for it. I don't like this "maximum potential" mindset in the slightest. I'm sure that both of us enjoy "nonproductive" activities such as watching bad sitcoms or playing mindless flash games. Can you really make that argument without being hypocritical?

[otter12]

I don't think chivalry is dead and I have had many arguments with guys claiming that women are the weaker sex full stop, both have advantages over the other. However I do find it sweet and feel respected if a guy opens and holds the door for me, or offers me his coat if I am freezing. However I too will return the favour, open and hold the door for older,younger people boys or girls and if my friend (a boy) was shivering and turning blue then I too would give him my coat it's just being nice. So I think we should treat everyone as we would like to be treated, in each situation the stronger person (mentally/physically) should help the weaker.

[IB Gawd]

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

I think that is very true but unfortunately, as a guy, it isn't very often that I meet a woman who understands usually the just look at me with a blank look when I try to explain. It's really annoying

[Julie]

I agree with balloon, kinda. Let me explain...
I do believe in equality between men and women, but not in a deep feministic manner. I believe women should be treated equally to men when it comes to their rights (such as incidents in history related to voting, working, etc.), but I also believe that men are the head of a relationship with a woman. I do not think they should dominate and take advantage of the woman, making her do things she would not normally do, but I believe the men are the main support. The men support the woman by providing for her, showing her utter love, sharing experiences/thoughts/bills!/etc with her. Woman are the "helpers men cannot live without" in a ways. Although men should be the main guides in life, women are there to help them make right decisions. I think men cannot survive without the help of a women. In that way, we become equal- men are "in charge" but only survive with the "guidance" and "help" of the woman.

As far as the love goes, I think a woman should feel privileged to be loved by an honorable, respectful man, but men should feel privileged to have the love of honorable, respectful women.

In my opinion, chivalry isn't dead. It is dead for some men, but not for all. Nowadays, women like to dominate, therefore they do not look for the chivalry in a man because they feel they should prove they can survive without men. Some men still demonstrate chivalry, and if you have experience with such a man, you realize you feel so much more safer, loved and cherish- that he would stand up for you in a respectful or disrespectful way in order to defend you, because he doesn't want anything to happen to you.

Concerning the ladies and gentlemen, they exist. It really depends on what your definition of "lady" and "gentleman" is; depends on your personality. Honestly, a gentleman to me is not a man who will open the door for me. I can live without those little actions of respect. My view of a gentleman is someone who treats me in a way that shows he recognizes my importance as a woman in his life, a man who presents himself well to other people, and presents me well too.

[rummandcoke]

Quote

What I mean to say is that underachieving isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are you achieving your "maximum potential"? Are you coming even close? Are you even making a significant effort? I'm sure as hell not, and I'm happy for it. I don't like this "maximum potential" mindset in the slightest. I'm sure that both of us enjoy "nonproductive" activities such as watching bad sitcoms or playing mindless flash games. Can you really make that argument without being hypocritical?

Underachieving isn't a bad thing. I might have worded that in an incorrect way, so my apologies. My argument is that if women and men have the capacity to make change, and they shouldn't be limited simply because of a gender role. If they wish to exercise their their strengths in whatever manner they choose, that should not be impeded by someone telling them they can't because they are a woman or a man. No one should feel the need to hold themselves back in order to protect the sensitivities of some other group who feels "threatened" by their chosen path or career, just because they feel like their gender somehow has a right or a stake in that particular job. Both males and females both have the ability to succeed in a lot of the same careers, and it's unjust to tell someone to shelve their abilities because society does it view what they've chosen to do as acceptable for them.

Quote

Although men should be the main guides in life, women are there to help them make right decisions. I think men cannot survive without the help of a women. In that way, we become equal- men are "in charge" but only survive with the "guidance" and "help" of the woman.

In my opinion as soon as you mention that a particular person in a relationship should be the "dominant" one or the "head", all potential for equality flies out the window. A relationship should be an equal give and take. Who is to say that women also cannot be the "main guide" of a man's life, and rely on him for support and right decisions? If any relationship should work, then it should have both the man and the woman being the "main guide"/"advice giver" in equal proportion, depending the particular incident. If that incident in question was something regarding my own affairs, I really would not want my husband to be my "guide" or "the one in charge". However, I would rely on him for advice and support in what to do. But it is not his job to make my decisions for me. In the same way, I cannot make his decisions for him. Because as soon as that occurs, even with consent, the scale tips.

To me, a gentlemen is someone who respects my independence and my rights as a person. That to me is what chivalry is, and should be. Respect for a woman, and realization that she does not need help because she is somehow "inferior" or cannot survive without it because she is too fragile, but acceptance of the fact that with or without his help, she is capable of standing on her own two feet, without the guidance or support of a man. The opening of doors and the pulling back of chairs need not be completely exempt, as long as they are done with the realization that just because a man doesn't do it doesn't mean that the woman will somehow break apart.

I guess my main problem with chivalry is the connotations of it. It irks me, that's all. But again, feminism and chivalry need not be mutually exclusive either. They can survive in harmony, and I think it's important to realize that.

[citizenoftheuniverse]

ivanthegiant, on Jan 27, 2010 - 19:58, said:

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

i believe the chivalry died when women said they wan to be equal. would it be equal if guys continued chivaly? and is it even equal today? i know there are things about unequal pay but what about the counter arguement? what about maternity leave? last time i checked, guys dont have maternity leave.Neistzche would say that there is no equality because no one is created equal. some food for thought

In Finland, fathers get paternity leave. Of course they dont get MATERNITY leave since maternity refers to motherhood.
Though paternity leave is shorter, but still.

[Philovitist]

The average 'feminist' actually cares less about equality than she does about being treated as an equal and as a woman at the same time.

[Robb]

nope, if you want fully equal rights, you wanna vote like us, work like us, dress like us, do everything we can do, which i'm not opposed to then girls can get the same treatment as men when they cross the line

You can't have all the pros of equal rights then fall back on chivalry and the ''oh I'm a girl you can't do that'' argument when you cross the line and make us loose our temper. that's the way the world works. Feminists cannot have their cake and eat it.
I'll treat a girl ''right'' with respect and I'll be polite and helpful but that's because she my girlfriend and i like her not because i'm obligated by some code to do so, and any girl i go out with will know that there is a limit to my politeness and my respectfulness the same way i draw limits with my buddy's. Once the limit is broken and the line is crossed no gender is going to get you out the trouble you've just got yourself into.

[citizenoftheuniverse]

horhey4, on Jan 22, 2011 - 20:42, said:

Well, I believe that it is that exact attitude that makes women (and men) feel like they are the weaker sex. I watched a Ted Talk about empowering women, for those of you who don't know what TED is I suggest you google it. The talk was about woman and why still to this day there are more male heads than their are woman. Her conclusion was simple, astonishing, and well quite sad. Woman are not heads of companies as much as males because they feel that they can't. That belief is the only thing from changing the statistics of how many male and female leaders we have in the U.S. and World.

So ladies, next time you think you can't, think again, you can. I want to be alive to see the day that there are just as many female leaders are there are male.

You are, Finland has a woman president and prime minister and the other ministeral positions are divided almost 50/50 between men and women. Of course it´s not all around the world, but there are places where there are just as amny female leaders as male.  

Yeah I know Finland is so awesome

[febreezick]

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

How do you think same-gender relationships should work? In some relationships there isn't always a man to protect or a woman to treasure. And if those relationships can be healthy and work just fine why does any relationship need strict gender roles?

Edited by febreezick, Jun 25, 2011 - 04:16.

[Proletariat]

febreezick, on Jun 25, 2011 - 04:11, said:

balloon, on Aug 01, 2009 - 05:59, said:

I am often condemned in my school for having an archaic view of relationship. I genuinely believe that the man is the 'head' of the relationship, not so that he can domineer but so that he can cherish and nurture and love in a way that shows it is his responsibility as the man to look after the woman. I honestly believe we are the 'weaker sex'. Not that we must then stay at home and do the dishes and raise the babies, but that we are generally physically weaker and that the man is there to protect. Honestly ladies, do we really want to be 'equal' when we can be safeguarded as a true treasure? Not that the man 'possesses' us but that he is fortunate enough to look after a woman because she has put her trust in him? I see that sort of relationship as more precious.

Not that women are perfect. I'm simply saying that it's a privelige to love a woman as it is a privelige to be loved, and it is not for boys but for men. Gentlemen. By the way, has anyone seen one lately?

Maybe feminism (as in the 'burn our bra's, treat us like men' feminism, as opposed to the 'stop raping me and give me the vote' feminism)has killed all the gentlemen? Ladies, in their quest to be treated like men have left no ladies behind to whom gentlemen can be gentlemanly, thus creating a dying breed?

Please don't say my view doesn't work, because it does. I have seen it.

I am basically wondering if:

Equality is your thing.
Chivalry is dead.
Ladies/gentlemen don't exist.

What is a real gentleman anyway? Mr. Darcy?

How do you think same-gender relationships should work? In some relationships there isn't always a man to protect or a woman to treasure. And if those relationships can be healthy and work just fine why does any relationship need strict gender roles?

I'll admit that I have a limited knowledge of same-sex relationships (living in a Conservative province means I only have a few friends who are openly gay), but a lot of times in a homosexual relationship there will be one individual who seemingly embodies what would traditionally be deemed masculine personality traits, while the other possesses more feminine qualities. I suspect that certain qualities about gender roles have psychological/genetic foundations, although I would regard them the same as any other stereotype: general guidelines for a group, but one should always take a tabula rasa approach to individuals.

[febreezick]

Proletariat, on Jun 25, 2011 - 05:05, said:

I'll admit that I have a limited knowledge of same-sex relationships (living in a Conservative province means I only have a few friends who are openly gay), but a lot of times in a homosexual relationship there will be one individual who seemingly embodies what would traditionally be deemed masculine personality traits, while the other possesses more feminine qualities. I suspect that certain qualities about gender roles have psychological/genetic foundations, although I would regard them the same as any other stereotype: general guidelines for a group, but one should always take a tabula rasa approach to individuals.

I think that's a good way to approach things, but I usually take a step further. If I'm not part of a social group then I do try to keep a blank mind about it until I'm able to get information and opinions about that group from somebody who is a member of that group. For example, I'm far more likely to take a Muslim's opinion on Muslim culture before I'm likely to take an atheist's or christian's opinion on Muslim culture.

I know that in the queer community my friends and I all find this saying to be accurate (and kind of funny): Asking who is the man and who is the woman in a same-sex relationship is like asking which chopstick is the fork and which is the spoon.

[Xydan]

I honestly believe that the real problem lies in the fact that many Feminists believe that Equality = Same.  They can't get around the fact that men and women are equal, but NOT the SAME.

   Women are naturally physically weaker; it's not just conditioning.  Do I have a penis because of conditioning?  Or will I be able to have babies if I condition myself to?

   Maybe it's time we started realising that to be treated equally isn't the same thing as to be treated like you are the same.  Men and Women aren't the same.