Stefanie vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCE2Uy7DOXA
- saying everyone is subjugated does not change that one of the justifications of oppression is gender, as well as race, origin of birth, wealth, etc
- it's not like all women are under all men... they are under their men. if the man is a king, the woman in question, the queen, is held higher than a lower man. collation, at each level, gender bias
- thing is, we're not in that case anymore, men are not required to do more dangerous tasks than women, unless they want to, and this lead to a contemporary imbalance
- muscle mass doesn't help women survive the threats to them, such as childbirth, exposure, times of famine... etc.
- you act like "men were willing" to take these out of the goodness of their heart when you describe how they had no choice.
- inuits - do men have it like that NOW? good job justifying patriarchy in the inuit
- lol at "stitching pelts" is not that hard... you don't think women evolved to be good at that work the way men did?
- your argument shows that both men and women are absolutely balanced in ability, in the state of nature, but what about a state of civilization?
- marriage is a contract that helps the women not get the short end of the stick... yes... and now we have no real contract of marriage! bwahahah society has changed but our thinking hasn't. we still think men are hunters, hahahahahah
- feminism means anti-science... stupid remark, you can easily see the science of this, which by the way supports more than one interpretation, and not think that means that it's an appropriate framework for our CURRENT situation.
- you say they didn't need to do it for themselves. You don't seem to understand the drive to reproduce is a goal of DNA itself... they did need to do it for THEMSELVES, it's how they came to be and is the definition of species success.
- I'm just not seeing where every man has to harpoon whales at this point... so what is the justification now? in this day and age, for us carrying around n otions from ancient times that no longer pertain
- you seem to say evolutarily women put in less, but your argument obviously shows that evolution insists on a ballance, and you mistake the scientific fact that men want to reproduce.
- agree that men also suffer gender bias... you are expected to have this role, and personally it seems like feminism has done more to release men from those roles, like sweethearted guys having to play meanguy to survive, etc, than any other type of activist.
- women have had power... through their husbands... because of the interleaving above this can be real power, and also, modulated by the character of the husband and his beliefs about assertive women. But it's always a "level down" relative to the other aspects of the woman's "rank" in the pecking order.
- we have just finally let women die in war, which is a feminist movement! to allow women to sacrafice like men have, according to you
- draft, israel
- male conscription in kuwait, one death in gulf war, nothing on any recent deaths, no evidence of any notable military action at all.... instead, they funded Iraq, got bombed by Iran, and asked us to protect them.
- It's patriarchical metaphor that has you assume that since they're in the military they are risking their life, even in a country with a history of being protected by us.
- so let me get this right
- men were in a service position long enough to get buff
- women thus let men pretend they were in control and had special privs to balance the special evolved-to-serve mentality.
- so perhaps that was the problem, perhaps rather than giving men the illusion of control, they should have just been treated as pampered servants with the women, that evolution chose as the protected one, for some reason, as the less disposable leaders.
- b/c as we evolved better technology, it seems men tried to keep control long after the biological justification wore thin.
No comments:
Post a Comment