Fuck Sexism

[tushantin]

RW, your post has brought new light to me, and now I finally understand why their understanding was rigid and intolerant; it wasn't a motive of aggression but means to suppress a social norm gone wrong. I still won't forgive some people's stupid habitual criticism of foreign culture without properly understanding said culture to begin with (it only makes them racist in this light), but at the same time I also sympathize their backgrounds now.

  I'm very sorry about your background. I've always thought that life in the USA was much advanced than here. Sure, you've got material quality of life there, but from what I've been hearing it seems that the general mindset of the average public is highly primitive than the modern states where I live, despite having less income / technology exposure. So much so that I pity the lifestyle of an average Joe and his restrictive intellectual and sensory capacity, and especially those highly educated and intelligent people such as you, who are hindered by other people with restrictive bias. Sure, places I've lived are culturally heavy, but these cultures adapt and evolve overtime; I've seen paralyzed folks being treated with respect, obese gentlemen achieve popularity with sheer skill, bald (or in some cases, mutilated faced) women living an ordinary life like any college folk. Even if a person has a single eye left in his/her skull we treat them as our equal, because it isn't the lack of beauty that is frowned upon here; what is frowned upon is disrespect towards another person, and the educated ones of us do our best to eradicate any and every form inhumanity. And I'm proud to live in such an advanced and open culture.

And I constantly remember those chants long gone, those chants that protested against uneducated, backward classes: throw away the masks of falsity! Grant the person a right to live! If our culture does not approve, then we will change it, because culture exists where people are and not the other way around. And today, the backwards are almost gone except in developing (or ignored) states where education is scarce, such as Rajasthan and Bihar.

So yeah, pride yourself in being a free bird! Don't like the wig? Throw it away. People disrespect you? Tell them to mind their own business. But you are you, a treasure-trove of knowledge and dreams; nothing can stop you from flying!

But what I still dislike is the generalization of social concepts rather than being able to distinguish between its elements. Are their minds really so primitive to throw away a basket of good apples just because a few turned out to be rotten? Where is their sense of value? Or is this the bane of living in a Capitalist nation?

I'm truly sorry for not being able to put more to the plate (I had so much to say), but unfortunately today isn't Friday.  


EDIT: Ah, ninja'd by Thought. Forgive me, mate. I'll read this now, but will get back to you and RW again later.

[tushantin]

Tush, part of the problems seems to come from how you and others perceive genders.

Sigh. I've said this a dozen times to J, and must I say it again? Those weren't my personal views, for God's sake! I keep saying, those are considered cultural views when the tradition was actually made! And the philosophy behind the tradition has evolved far enough today, but neither of it equals my personal views or attitude towards it. Anywhos, I'll get back to replying your post eventually. Sorry.

EDIT: Why do I have a strange feeling that despite the abundance in logic it's actually the primitive notions in people's brains that pull the strings? Even when you're actually talking about views that may not be your own people immediately assume that you're siding with the enemy and wouldn't hesitate to accuse you. It's insane! Is this tribalistic thinking exactly what restricts people from seeing through another perspective? As if subconsciously or forcefully playing a psychology that thinking like them may turn you into the same person? Or that even considering the opposition's thoughts is a sin? Why?

And this is exactly what makes people fearful at the subconscious level, giving them a sense of betrayal. And they either strengthen or eliminate immediately, fearing it may cause some kind of damage. Either that, or they readily force people to convert into the same mindset as them.

.... There is a huge flaw in human thinking pattern, but it is also essential at the survival of intelligent lifeforms at a fundamental level. Thought, I thank you for that false accusation. I know this is out of topic, but this slight deduction will be important later for my research. Thanks again.

[Thought]

Sigh. I've said this a dozen times...

Sorry about that. I saw that you clarified your position and I had thought I had gone back and likewise clarified my remark, but apparently I did not. But as to why you had to clarify your position in the first place:

... makes much sense to Sikhs and Hindus (if only because our minds and reason are shaped based on our language structure).

Us brothers take up arms to protect them...

You were expressing a perspective of a people group, you identified yourself as a member of that people group, and you identified yourself as someone who would take actions that conform to those perspectives.

Again, I apologize for not adjusting my statement appropriately. Hopefully you can see why people thought you were identifying with those views: even if it was not your intent, your phrasing seemed to clearly identify you as holding to them.

However, you will note that I did not say that I had thought I had removed my remark, only that I had thought I clarified it. The reason for this is that even if you do not hold the views which you were expressing, the manner in which you expressed them was still sufficient to justify the points which I was making. Perhaps this was not your intent, but you seemed to be respectful of the sexist perspective and you presented it in such a way as to indicate that you saw something admirable in it. To provide an example:

Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady.

As I discussed, unique roles are necessarily limiting. That you specifically tried to defend the position by claiming the opposite gives the impression that you support it. Perhaps you meant this as "people at the time would have said..." rather than "this is my own statement," but if so that was not born out in your actual statement. Indeed, your analogy of legs also implies that this situation is desirable (as being unsteady is something that tends to be undesirable). But again, perhaps you meant that this is what others would claim?

Another point that seemed to merit my original discussion is that, in all honesty, proscriptive sexism is something that is quiet enticing to individuals with a romantic senseability. I do hope you are not offended by this statement, but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual. Of everyone here, you are the one who I'd expect who would join in with Edgar Allan Poe as he asks science "Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart? ... How should he love thee? or deem thee wise? Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering, To seek for treasure in the jeweled skies". From the character you have displayed previously, you are the one I would expect to try to redeem the very dragon you fight. You are the one who, when you stumble across something old, seems the most likely to try to see worth in it. I do not doubt that you are staunchly against prohibitive sexism (I noted as much in my original post). But as noted, proscriptive sexism is something that is more enticing. It is the old romantic ideal of chivalry and courtly love that seems like it would be enticing to you. And thus, it seemed that establishing how proscriptive behaviors can still lead to sexism would be a useful discussion.

Anyhwho, I am quite apologetic if my post frustrated you. My intent was merely informative.

[Lord J Esq]

Thank you, Thought. Your patience is exemplary. This takes some of the pressure off my own eventual reply to tush, which I also appreciate.

[tushantin]

You were expressing a perspective of a people group, you identified yourself as a member of that people group, and you identified yourself as someone who would take actions that conform to those perspectives.

Again, I apologize for not adjusting my statement appropriately. Hopefully you can see why people thought you were identifying with those views: even if it was not your intent, your phrasing seemed to clearly identify you as holding to them.

Yeah, that happens a lot.   I don't think like you guys, I think like a hardcore artist. And everything I seem to say gets misinterpreted somehow or the other.

No probs, Thought! It was just a minor misunderstanding. If anything, you sparked a brainstorm in my head.   I'll most likely post the idea by Friday (and you guys are bound to hate me for it, though I still don't know why). Still, if I can get some useful input / observations this Friday it should be worth it. The topic pertains to lifeforms (not necessarily human), neurons and their relations to fundamental intelligence, culture, religion, government, structure of belief (and perhaps language / education), feminism / tribalism in general and its nature, etc. Can't wait (provided I can still retain my thoughts until then)! All I ask in return is people to not take sides, not let their prejudice sway them and definitely not accuse people. Thank you.

However, you will note that I did not say that I had thought I had removed my remark, only that I had thought I clarified it. The reason for this is that even if you do not hold the views which you were expressing, the manner in which you expressed them was still sufficient to justify the points which I was making. Perhaps this was not your intent, but you seemed to be respectful of the sexist perspective and you presented it in such a way as to indicate that you saw something admirable in it.

Ah, thank you for asking.   Let me clarify my intentions. As I said in the previous post (moments before I got lost in a whirlwind of ideas), these aren't my personal views, but those of a primitive culture (which I must point out, before anyone accuses again, has evolved since then). Of course I saw something admirable in it, and of course I support the tradition brought about by this idea (because it places an anchor from where the idea evolved today)! But I was merely supporting the tradition itself, not the idea, although the idea was at its core when it was formed and thus the necessity to place it before the person who was eager to know about it. But just because you consider a thought does not necessarily make them your thoughts, or views you conform with. An analogy: as a human, ponder accurately that you're a giraffe made to wear a space-suit; now restrain your intelligence (but not your imagination) temporarily to that of the Giraffe's. Only in this case, I felt like I was trying to look from the eyes of a Nazi soldier who swore to make the world a better place for his wife and children, just to observe his mindset, but only to be shot by a soldier of the Allied Nations for ever thinking about the Nazi mindset.

My own views regarding genders are vastly different, and my defense mode was the tradition solely, but not the theory. Thoughts and concepts, no matter how horrible and tribalistic, are my modes of reference to sharpen my own philosophy. I repeat: Just because you consider or support a thought does not mean you conform / abide by it, and does not mean you have similar views; your supporting of a thought can have reasons more than one. In this case, my preservation and defense of the anchor since when culture evolved.

As I discussed, unique roles are necessarily limiting. That you specifically tried to defend the position by claiming the opposite gives the impression that you support it. Perhaps you meant this as "people at the time would have said..." rather than "this is my own statement," but if so that was not born out in your actual statement. Indeed, your analogy of legs also implies that this situation is desirable (as being unsteady is something that tends to be undesirable). But again, perhaps you meant that this is what others would claim?

Yeah, sorry about that. Let me try explaining that (again, note these aren't my views, but what I've learned of the past): Since before the eradication of backward, orthodox traditions, female oppression was widespread in India even until the British era, when segregated kingdoms fell (although I must point that the backward classes were few and far between at that era compared to pre-fall of the Mughals). Two things changed that: 1) during the British Era it was civilized education and re-enforcement of law; 2) before the British era, one that worked effectively was the integration of Hindu culture and social empathy / human rights movements. The latter worked wonders, since in those days religion enforced and encouraged practical knowledge, including science, hunting and arts, and established a moral base.

Now you can agree that before the establishment the orthodox were demons of sexism (what with their female sacrifices, superstitions and shit). You're probably aware of the structure of polytheism in Hinduism, so let's say a neat transition took place; something taken from the orthodox so people's minds could broaden, and something that would eventually evolve into. Let's call this the Transition Era: here women were valued as much as the male and were given equal rights and privileges, and all customs converted, but the bias still remained. The philosophy was the Gurus and Pandits was such:

Each gender has a unique and important role to play towards the society, not necessarily limiting, like two legs keeping us steady.

While this statement may have offended the Compendiumites, let me tell you why I support it. Yes, the roles were the same gendernormative as we discussed, and the Gurus were aware of it, except they thought these role were pre-defined by their ancestors (like Lord/Sage Shiva and Parvati, Sita and Rama, Krishna, etc.; and weirdly enough, they were right about the ancestors, just incorrect about specific characters). But they also added the not limiting factor, because they valued both genders as equals, both equally capable, strong and cunning (their usual reference was of Lord Shiva and Parvati, but there may have been others). But the two legs reference has a much deeper philosophy.

Now let me simplify this philosophy. Males and Females, like Yin and Yang, were two sides of the same coin; two equal parts of a complete being, that one without the other simply cannot be. Each gender is like a leg attached to a body, and both equally important. Undermine any one of those legs, whether left or right, and you're crippled. But respect both and you will go far.

Another point that seemed to merit my original discussion is that,.....

Eh... I don't really know what you mean y that passage, but...

....but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual...

...but you do seem to be a rather romantic individual. Of everyone here, you are the one who I'd expect who would join in with Edgar Allan Poe as he asks science "Why preyest thou thus upon the poet's heart? ... How should he love thee? or deem thee wise? Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering, To seek for treasure in the jeweled skies". From the character you have displayed previously, you are the one I would expect to try to redeem the very dragon you fight. You are the one who, when you stumble across something old, seems the most likely to try to see worth in it.

You had me there... *twitch* by about a hundred percent that it's ironic I didn't figure this about myself. When did you exactly predict / deduce this about me?

And don't tell me being romantic is sexist?! Hell no, life would be boring without it! BORING I TELL YA!

Marriage Agency: "Okay, you two have been seeking partners. Do you two love each other?"
Man and Woman in unison: "No."
MA: "Good! Because that's sexist, and our government doesn't tolerate that. Please sign this contract here. Done? Good! You may kiss each other and reproduce!"

....*pukes*

[tushantin]

Just wanted to point some things out as well:

What if a particular woman likes physical activity very much? She goes out and tries to become a porter, let’s say, but every job turns her down because, hey, everyone knows that the men who applied for the position along with her are physically stronger. Such a culture might allow something to be conceptually possible, but in actual practice that possibility is suppressed.

See, here there's a difference between how a culture might bias a view or what the actual strength requirements are for the job. As you point out the Everyone knows men are stronger you imply the limitations imposed by underdeveloped culture, and in this case it is clearly wrong. However, not going for assumptions, if a woman does apply for being a porter and her strength is tested, given the equality of genders, if she doesn't pass the strength requirement her failure is justified. Merely because she is a woman doesn't grant her special privilege as far as gender equality is concerned, and she would need to cope with the same average labor as her male coworkers, not less or more. But if a woman is physically active as you point out she also has the capability to surpass her male coworkers in strength.

Again, I'm stating from the POV of Gender Equality concept.

It isn't just that one's family might say that women can't be scientists, other scientists say that too. They expect that a woman would want to have a family, would want to take maternity leave, would want to take care of children, and thus expecting women to do some things causes them to preclude them from other things.

In a way, they are actually right (NO, before you guys bash me let me explain!). If you completely disregard the Gender Equality POV it makes sense that majority of women are bound with complex relationships of gendernormative roles as you've described, and most Scientists fear that women in general might be horrible at finishing deadlines or surmounting tedious research when they are constantly distracted with the domestic roles they usually play. Also, they seem to be convinced that women in general are emotional while males are analytic.

No, these aren't my views: this is exactly the kind of ruthless generalization habit I despise, and this kind of generalization gives birth to more forms of tribalism. But putting aside my hatred, let's return to being unbiased and understand the sexist POV in a new light (yes, temporarily wear that sexist lens so you can understand this next paragraph):

If most scientists are convinced that these differences may not be satisfactory to their working habits, and that somehow their sexism is justified, then they forget one factor that equally sexist factor that makes them inferior to feminine race: evolution. Throughout millennia while the males left for hunting, the females gathered for their social, domestic chores in groups to pick berries and fruits for the night. Thousands of years of experience has given them an ability that males lack, such as color recognition, and the ability to pick out toxins from edible substances quicker, which also makes them invaluable to spot elements / chemicals on sight. Also, the scientists worry about their inability to work with deadlines due to gendernormative distractions, but from a truly sexist eyes they forget that generations of practice has given women the ability to manage time much more conveniently than men, also making them the best organizers. In this case, sexist or not, women can be better scientists then men.

Taking off the sexist lens, I can say one thing: merely taking gendernormative roles into account doesn't give them the right to assume a person's character, man or woman. What they forget that even a woman is willing to compromise things just to fly once in the cerulean. They simply haven't tested her dream.

Now I said that it might be possible, in a hypothetical model, for proscriptive roles for genders to not be sexist. That, though, is just because we can imagine that saying that people can do activity X does not necessitate that such a statement would discourage those people from an unmentioned activity Y. If women were told that they can be scientists, then that inherently dictate that they are also being subtly told that they can't be firefighters, nurses, or housewives. Indeed, it might even be possible for a few individuals to, in actual practice, hold to such an ideal. But, unfortunately, human society inherently does not function in such a way.

See, this is hardly about sexism anymore, but needless complication of language. Yes, I love broad meaning to words, yes, I love reading between the lines, but this shit is ridiculous! I mean, in this case, no matter what you say you're bound to offend/oppress someone or the other. Tell them they're free to be a pilot? And suddenly the possibilities of unsaid words open up, either making them wonder whether they're restricted from being anything else, or simply pondering whether they were some kind of exception to the freedom everyone else has. And when you ask the person again, they'll say, "that's exactly what I mean; you're free to be a pilot if you want, and if you don't want to that's cool too."

There's some inherent flaws in our languages, and I want to fix it. I just don't know where to start...

A general problem with allowing differences between the sexes influence social expectations is that it is unnecessary...

Ah, that needless complications of language again. And suddenly, that argument long gone of "Be a man" floods into my mind. The problem remains deeply ingrained in the English language itself where genders automatically reprise their roles by default (in the case of "Be a man", it's courage and responsibility). Most feminists would take offense of the statement and ponder the unsaid words, "So what are we, women? Are you undermining the opposite gender?" But all the phrase's unsaid words actually mean is to not be a Rat who runs like a coward and squeaks like a wimp. The phrase may have similar origins to, "What are you, a man of a mouse?"

Again, this is an ancient English phrase I did not invent, where the role of men was assigned to be brave.

The part that is important to the survival of a culture is what they define as unique and important roles, not which gender those roles are applied to. Would it radically undermine Sikh or Hindu culture to say, "being physically protective and being emotionally stable are two unique and important roles that keep society steady, like two legs"?

Yes it would, because these roles, though gender normative, never pertained to the practices of their daily lives, abilities or inabilities of the genders. But what the roles did imply was the staggering difference in thought-patterns of genders, and the actions they individually provoke. An example of their belief back then was that while males tackled the world and made decisions, women were generally more intuitive and may pick out errors that her husband must have fled. Thus the phrase, "behind every successful man there's a nagging wife" (the nagging bit was a stereotype, but was left in for sexist comic relief; XD it's the women who loved the joke most). The statement also meant that without a beloved wife's support there's a good chance you may not travel as far as you could have (again, the two legs theory).

This was the basis of the idea that women were important (and in many cases "superior") because of the domestic powers they possessed, and functioned in the society with sheer intuition and a variety of knowledge. In some cultures, women were also viewed as Goddesses by their husbands, and their homes as temples. There's a Sikh proverb to thank for which says that they see heaven in the woman's eyes, for in social field they are all knowing. Even mothers were respected, considered to be the all wise, equivalent to "The Creator" or "God" in simple terms.

Argh! There is a far more complex mechanism that worked throughout many cultures here, especially ranging from Punjab, but we've got so friggin many it's hard for me to keep track. But I tell ya, with this kind of respect that every female gets, I doubt this kind of sexism is anything bad.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, I'll eventually get back to RW too. 

[ZeaLitY]

While this statement may have offended the Compendiumites, let me tell you why I support it. Yes, the roles were the same gendernormative as we discussed, and the Gurus were aware of it, except they thought these role were pre-defined by their ancestors (like Lord/Sage Shiva and Parvati, Sita and Rama, Krishna, etc.; and weirdly enough, they were right about the ancestors, just incorrect about specific characters). But they also added the not limiting factor, because they valued both genders as equals, both equally capable, strong and cunning (their usual reference was of Lord Shiva and Parvati, but there may have been others). But the two legs reference has a much deeper philosophy.

Enjoy it while it lasts, for if I come to power, I will utterly annihilate it and institute a system of complete freedom, where people can choose what roles they'd like to play without any prohibitive biology or cultural attitudes at work. Fuck fate.

[Lord J Esq]

@Z:
How would you implement your system? You should make a thread for that, to keep this one on-topic and also to give your views more substance. You already know that most people would find your statement unacceptably provocative. How would you accommodate that? What would your methods be?

@tush:
I may not get the chance to reply to all of these posts of yours in full detail; Syna is higher up the list right now as I've been weeks in getting back to her on the issues raised in the Veil thread. For the time being I want to register a complaint I have, which is that by my understanding many of your statements here have been contradictory. You write, for instance, of opposing an "idea" but supporting the "tradition" behind it. In one of your examples, you made an even more ambiguous comparison: "consider or support" versus "conform or abide." The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance. It seems as though we may have a serious breakdown in communication here, because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism...which doesn't make sense. Hence my suspicion that I am not understanding you correctly.

[tushantin]

Enjoy it while it lasts, for if I come to power, I will utterly annihilate it and institute a system of complete freedom, where people can choose what roles they'd like to play without any prohibitive biology or cultural attitudes at work. Fuck fate.

Well then, let's see you try. I'm interested in knowing how you're going to get about it. Then again, the question is, if you come to power. Another problem here: your enforcement of your belief onto another person/society, no matter how noble, only makes you a hypocrite because you've often accused of the opposing party to be doing the same: enforcing beliefs that might not be compatible with yours.

This isn't my anger speaking, but base logic. Earlier I apologized because your feminist views were noble and logical. Right now, you're reacting with blind prejudice, regardless of the details in my post. TBH, whatever your Radical Atheistic fanclub is planning, I want no part of it.

For the time being I want to register a complaint I have, which is that by my understanding many of your statements here have been contradictory. You write, for instance, of opposing an "idea" but supporting the "tradition" behind it. In one of your examples, you made an even more ambiguous comparison: "consider or support" versus "conform or abide." The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance. It seems as though we may have a serious breakdown in communication here, because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism...which doesn't make sense. Hence my suspicion that I am not understanding you correctly.

Yeah, I realized that (language barriers), but also because I don't conform with linguistic logic because it is heavily restricting, at least to me (some complex concepts being personal, others which I can't translate over from Hindi / Sindhi). I honestly don't know how to explain that to you, but here's what I can manage, but I'll give you the details this Friday (as I promised Thought):

Okay, what is the definition of Culture? The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. Basically culture exists where people do, but it gets a bad name for certain things people simply want to cling on to. The reality, however, is that Culture simply updates with time and delivers new concepts or polishes old laws that stabilize a society. But when a culture clings on to primitive, harmful traditions they are called "Backward Classes", and it is always essential to educate these classes to update themselves with a better society.

Also, it was not just the idea, but the idea back when that persisted on sexist aggression; something I do not support. But certain traditions that they were responsible for creating was something I support, not because they were compatible with my views, not because they enforced something harmful, but as an anchor point to the past reference for study and what those traditions they evolved into, and their philosophy behind it. Again, the tradition didn't bring the idea, it was the other way around. While back then Raksha Bandhan merely signified the bond of protection, today it has a broader meaning to it.

The only difference between supporting a practice and abiding by it is physical action--not conceptual acceptance.

Of course! Simple support for concept does not equal practicing it in general, but then there is a difference between actual "support" and "consideration". For instance, shift your perception to that of sailor. That's consideration. Feel sympathy towards that sailor while the ship drowns -- that's support. Go back to your initial POV and notice the sailor is actually the enemy and you follow orders to shoot him -- that's abiding / conforming. Go back to the sailor's POV and feel your enemy's pain and regrets that he will never see his children -- supporting.

...because my impression is that you are against sexism when it causes injustice but in favor of the underlying social institution of sexism

That's... again a misunderstanding here, I don't support the underlying institution, it's merely useful for study. But I do support a proper, updating culture in general. Most of those points I mentioned weren't even supportive but a means to place the cogs that can explain how a wheel turns. What I do support is innocent traditions, whether or not sprung from a sexist era, that play a major role in spreading empathy, social respect, human rights and tolerance.

Did that make sense to you? .... Yeah, me neither. I'll probably get back to you on this by Friday in detail.

Sidenote: BTW, remember the Bear Bile problem? ZeaLitY posted a comment there regarding financial gains for curing illness, and this ticked my mind somewhere, brainstorming concepts. One of those especially might either change the world and stabilize the situation in our world (yes, every problem), or might make for a good Fiction novel. I will detail about it this Friday.

[ZeaLitY]

Damn! It seems you're on my bid to take over the world. What horrors would unleash? I hope no one accidentally discovers my Secret Radical Seditious Extremist Blueprint for Optimum Civilization™!

(I hid it at http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html )

[Lord J Esq]

Ah, that's the one that got me started on Subnormality...

[tushantin]

Holy shit! Is that... Richard Dawkins?! xDDD

Just saw a movie with some friends and family, where we saw a divorce scene and someone commented on how horrible it was. I provided a responded that the choice was rational, and it's better to break up (provided you don't have children) than die everyday in an unhealthy relationship. But a female friend of mine (who joined in halfway) said, "Yes, so what of guys make guys make that stupid mistake? At least a woman should know to forgive and turn the situation."

I jokingly asked her, "Since when did you become sexist all of a sudden?" And she smiled and teased me back, "Since men were dumb. Us women can be better; just because men make stupid mistakes doesn't mean we also have to."

That's when I realized that she was the kind of women who'd grab a knife and make her husband dance to her whims (the theory was confirmed when I met her boyfriend).


If anyone's interested, the movie we were watching was Thank You, one about infidelity in marriage where it is the women that suffer most.

After the movie, just for the heck of it, we took tests to see who among us was most likely to be disloyal towards our partners (then again, I don't even have a girlfriend), and when my turn came I openly admitted that I can't imagine myself living with just one woman, but if I did have external affairs I wouldn't lie either.

Which is strange, because neither can I bear to see girl's heart break...

What about you folks?


P.S.: That flute music was EPIC!

[Syna]

I know I am late to the game, but I wanted to give some serious, serious props to RW for covering how deep, odious, and insidious internalized misogyny can be.

I'm a relatively liberated person, and unlike RW my behavior is very often non-stereotypically-feminine. From a very early age I openly rebelled against gender norms, and in a pretty hostile environment. Telling me I'm unladylike would invite riotous laughter and quite possibly a ruthless and aggressive philosophical vivisection. However, I know exactly what she means when she talks about that little voice, though mine is not that direct. It tends to take the form of powerful self-doubt and sabotage, and things like being deeply pleased when someone describes me as an exception to most women in terms of being intellectual or assertive or something.

I was extremely *proud* when someone told me I was a tomboy as a kid because I denigrated femininity. I dismissed the girls' activities and values because I feared being associated with traits that were inferior and weak. It's a very common tactic among females.

Also, while sexism is certainly a strongly prevailing meme in humanity, some anthropology that covers topics like hunter-gatherer and matrilineal societies will indicate that given the right conditions, alternatives have certainly presented themselves. I don't think we can ignore the fact that sexism has been so prevailing, but I also believe we need to be very cautious about turning directly to psychological explanations.

Women get pregnant. Men are typically stronger. Division of labor along the lines of the most clear and visible differences between people has often made a degree of sense. I don't doubt that there's a psychological component, but I suspect those three facts explain most of sexism.

If anyone's interested, the movie we were watching was Thank You, one about infidelity in marriage where it is the women that suffer most

Uhh, Tush.. have you read The Iliad? XD

If not, suffice to say, the legend of Helen of Troy is a powerful argument against this statement.

My personal experience would say the same. People react very strongly to a woman who is perceived as unfaithful. That kind of reaction would not occur if males didn't suffer as much -- it's just that historically, they've had more opportunities to be unfaithful. 

Anyway, it's a complex side-topic, but one would hope that as time goes on and we are less wrapped up in sexist tropes, people will begin to embrace non-standard models for pairbonding. Extramarital affairs may be the cause of a lot of awful heartbreak, but many societies have found ways to accommodate non-monogamy in relatively harmless ways.

(By the way, you should read "The Invisible Sex" by J. M. Adovasio. That example you gave of hunter-gatherers is outdated: the reality of hunter-gatherer role division is far more complex.)

[Acacia Sgt]

Usually I don't like to enter topics like this since it's not my thing and may not be up to the task. However, perhaps I could add my thoughts on the matter anyway, who knows...

I was extremely *proud* when someone told me I was a tomboy as a kid because I denigrated femininity. I dismissed the girls' activities and values because I feared being associated with traits that were inferior and weak. It's a very common tactic among females.  

I've always been in the thought that such views like this one are as sexist as the ones they're accusing of. Just maybe it's not so much the stereotypes themselves but what they are being perceived and applied as. You're basically also jumping into the 'femininity is inferior' bandwagon there. It makes you not much different. It's fine if you wanted to be like that by your choice. But at the same time, it's not fine that you're also adopting that ideology that your actions were suppose to oppose.

If only people would stop thinking of things as stereotypes as a natural bad thing, or accentuate and follow the negative aspects of them, or lining them up into 'this is better' or 'this is worse' or 'it should* be this way or that way', then perhaps things could start to go for the better.

*Key word here, as there is a big difference between 'can' and 'should'.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealWomenNeverWearDresses

I don't care if it's TVTropes, it pretty much explains my point better than I at the moment. And I've had this line of thinking even before knowing of the site, so it's not like I gained it from there.

[Syna]

I've always been in the thought that such views like this one are as sexist as the ones they're accusing of. Just maybe it's not so much the stereotypes themselves but what they are being perceived and applied as. You're basically also jumping into the 'femininity is inferior' bandwagon there. It makes you not much different. It's fine if you wanted to be like that by your choice. But at the same time, it's not fine that you're also adopting that ideology that your actions were suppose to oppose.

Right. That was exactly my point. I had a case of internalized misogyny. I was definitely not the sort of person who would ever willingly play house to begin with, but I would have been much more at peace with that if I hadn't been exposed to sexist ideas and, out of anxiety over the fact I didn't particularly fit in any group on the playground, justified the fact I was more interested in male activities by equating femininity with being inferior.