Adventure Game Studio

Ok, I've just read this article while I was googling for news about the little missing girl Madeleine Mccann and I nearly fell out of my chair. Do people really feel this way about women suffering? ???

I'll be honest, I myself do love reading a book or watching a program that has a female hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them (e.g. Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind) but does that mean I unconsciously relish in violence against women? Does that make me a bad person for it?

I'm not sure how to feel about this...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2903281.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=HRBlue

I don't reckon it makes you a bad person. I want to see women do stuff...that makes me a pervor and a little weirdo.

That's a load of opinionated bull.

People love watching other people suffer, period. It's called schadenfreude (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/schadenfreude.htm). Yes, admit it, funniest home videos and celeb scandals and Darwin Awards are fun to many. And yes, thinking so makes (nearly) everybody a (slightly) bad person - but whether the suffering person is male or female is, to most people, irrelevant.

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 21/11/2007 22:10:06
hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them

Can't you find this plot from every book/movie/serie.  :)

Quote from: Radiant on Wed 21/11/2007 22:17:08
That's a load of opinionated bull.

People love watching other people suffer, period. It's called schadenfreude (http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/avenueq/schadenfreude.htm).

Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male? Don't they show more women victim in the show CSI than men?

I just thought the article was eye-opening.

By the way it took me almost 30 minutes to write back because I can't find the right words to explain what I think, that's what happens when your English isn't your first language.

Quote from: mchammer on Wed 21/11/2007 22:22:40

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 21/11/2007 22:10:06
hero going through hardships and obstacles and somehow overcoming them

Can't you find this plot from every book/movie/serie.  :)

I know, but I meant women in this case.

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 21/11/2007 22:43:03
Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male?

Well, yes, because if the target audience is women, then showing women will make them commiserate more; whereas if the target audience is men, the winning combination is schadenfreude plus boobies.

I mean, why do you think they invented cheerleaders? The one thing that's got to be better than watching sport, is watching sport and boobies. Predictable, no?

If psychology doesn't make you laugh, it's bound to make you cry.

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 21/11/2007 22:43:03
Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male? Don't they show more women victim in

Well.. kinda yes,
but at least for me it's not because I'd love to see women suffer. I just feel more sympathy towards women than men. But i dont know if that's because im a man myself.

Btw I just red Alexandre Dumas Jr's Camille. Great book and fits well to topic  :)

I don't think I particularly prefer seeing women suffer over men.
I love watching skating cock-ups.

There is some strange sympathy a man feels when seeing another man bang his bollocks.  We can almost feel the pain ourselves and we feel a sense of brotherhood with the sufferer, but as well as the sympathy it is also one of the most hilarious things to witness.  It's beautiful.

Although I didnt appreciate my sister laughing when it happened to me... but if another guy had been there laughing at me I probably would have laughed along with them even though I was in agony.

I think I'd rather see the woman survive rather than tortured. But alas, the survival often requires some preparations. Now thinking of it, I truly don't realise that I've ever paid attention in the difficulties the women experience in the movies mentioned or in the stories I've heard/read.

However, on second thought, I really love Dostoevsky's books, and he most often has a strong female character in them, like Natasya in The Idiot. I might suppose it's got something to do with how a woman is often related to maternity, which then brings strong bonds and feelings. That, and it is possible, that most people who are there to analyse this and then giving their opinions are in fact men. And I have a hard time emphatising with another, unknown man, except for certain, great stories or performances or even happenings.

Careful, Buffy, on the contrary, was not an archetype of a weak, victimized woman. Buffy was actually a *strong* woman who, while retaining her femininity, fought off incredible odds. That was novel and incredibly on TV, where women are rarely presented as anything but supporting characters or bubbling mess. Only show coming close to that was Veronica Mars--a tough, attractive blond, who manages to face the (very) difficult odds stacked against her and prevail.


Our society is very normative (as discussed in that previous post about "am I asocial"): that means heteronormative, priviledging white people, ... but also extremely sexist. It is not normal, that important founding documents throughout the world state laws in terms of men (the declaration of independence says "all men are created equal", etc., etc.) ... of course progress has been made. Women can vote. We have a woman presidential candidate in the US (and a woman chancellor in Deutschland) ... but things are also very much the same.

I disagree that "we like to see women suffer because they look good doing it". I think the correct way to see it is, "we have not accepted that women are entitled to the same responsibilities, privileges as men"; society, to a degree, does not widely accept that women can be strong, that women can be successful.

(I don't think "CSI victims" is at all part of this phenomena---more plausibly, women are more prone to physical aggressions, because they are, on average, physically weaker then men.)


For instance, I don't know who watches much TV, but strong female leads are extremely rare. From Ally McBeal, where all the women where depicted either as airheads or dominatrix (Ling) ... to today, with Grey's Anatomy. In Grey's Anatomy, the character of Addison Shepard was initially introduced as a strong, confident and successful neonatal specialist. But the strength of her success antagonized viewers, and a lot considered her a bitch. That is why, to make the character more likeable, she has been made increasingly ditzier and clumsier ... Now the character that is getting her own show, Private Practice, is not at all the character that was first introduced. I find it terrible that this strong character had to be dumbbed down to be likeable.

That is sexism, and that is what the article is talking about.

Others example include Paris Hilton, and her friend. Of course she has acted like a spoiled brat, but I don't know how I would react if I had so much pressure for the media--so many people, tabloids, who live on my mistakes. When she was prosecuted for drunk driving, she was not treated fairly. On the base that she was not prosecuted enough, she had to go through an overly tough prosecution, and sentence.

Where is the male equivalent? Am I to believe that male stud celebrities don't get drunk? Don't get rawdy?

And next to that, real (male) crooks, who actually do destroy lives, such a Scooter Libby, get a jail free card.

Finally, Hillary, yes, she is getting agressed because she is a shadowy candidate, with some contestable views (and some very unclear views), for an office that has already been too corrupted ... but it's also because she is the first woman candidate (which is, of itself, terrible for the so called first democracy), because the odds are against her, because a lot of people are not ready to see a woman succeed that much. See John Edwards' comments about her skirt; John McCain laughing at a supporter calling her a bitch.

Yes, this society, for all its progress, is still incredibly sexist, and biased against successful women. But no, I don't think it's because they "look good suffering", or because we "enjoy seeing them suffer". I feel like strong women threaten a lot of men--men, who feel like those women are going after their jobs, or something, I don't know ... (and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman).

Quote from: Dowland on Wed 21/11/2007 23:23:54
(and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman).

Well, if that is the case, then America seriously needs to grow up, because most European countries have been ruled by a queen or two throughout history.

Monarchies are different in two ways:

* first the queens are usually highly symbolical leaders; in England today, while there is a Queen, the political responsibilities, and day to day governing, fall on the Prime Minister (who, granted, serves at the pleasure of HM) ... in other countries, it might be a viceroy, or a chancellor, etc.;

* second the queens did not gain their position through success--they have generally not earned it through hard work, etc., it is a charge that they carry through blood, and hence they are not threatening, because it is not a position that could've been "gained" any other way.

Of course, there have been leaders such as Margaret Thatcher ... but they are the exception. And one might argue that Margaret Thatcher was not allowed to "retain much of her femininity".

Quote from: Dowland on Wed 21/11/2007 23:41:10
Monarchies are different in two ways:

I am aware of that, but since the point is not "women's ability to govern" but "American men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman at the top of the pyramid", the point still stands.

Quote from: Radiant on Wed 21/11/2007 23:58:01

Quote from: Dowland on Wed 21/11/2007 23:41:10
Monarchies are different in two ways:

I am aware of that, but since the point is not "women's ability to govern" but "American men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman at the top of the pyramid", the point still stands.

Agreed, but it's "men's uneasy feelings towards having a woman *climb* to the top of the pyramid". The difference is between a woman getting there on her own, and woman being installed there through rules established by men (the rules of that monarchy, the blood of a royal family). And the rationalization that, women are at the top, but in a insulated bubble that does not influence the world of men so much.

This sexism is certainly not restricted to America (granted there is a good deal of backwards thinking there). And why the anti American feeling? Did you see the mud-slinging that occurred in France, when a woman was the primary candidate of the socialist party?

Quote from: Nightfable on Wed 21/11/2007 22:43:03Ahhh... yes, I see. But if you've have to choose between a female or a male going through some hardships, wouldn't most rather see the female than the male?

I don't even know how to answer that, really. It has never even crossed my mind that I'd get any kick out of watching people suffer. If were talking about glossy american tv shows, I think it's the overcoming of something rather than the suffering itself that we like. Anyway, suffering is relative and unmeasurable. Is it mental, physical or some other kind of suffering? Is the pleasure we get sexual, empathetic, or what? Or is it just interest, and getting involved in someone else's story, because we identify with it? I certainly don't get any kick from watching the lead actors in Requiem for a Dream suffering, but I still regard the movie as interesting, because it tells a story of the dark side of reality. I don't get any perverted pleasure from watching people stumbling on America's Funniest Home Videos, and I wouldn't call that suffering either. It's such a broad spectrum that I would wag my finger at anyone who makes such a simplistic argument as the author of this article does.

Are Americans waiting on the edge of their seats for Hillary to screw up? Perhaps. Is she being bullied by 'all the guys' just because she's a woman? No, she's being bullied like any presidential front-runner would be, when it's getting closer to the actual election. People seem to forget that she is currently the most likely candidate to become president in 2008. Even the cordial Obama is taking his gloves off to get some leverage on the polls.

Quote(and, no, please, nobody tell me that a strong woman is a turn on, because a lot of men say that in private, but are in truth not prepared to be governed by a woman)

You don't need to govern men to be a strong woman.

Edited to remove stupidity.

Quote from: ildu on Thu 22/11/2007 00:05:44
Are Americans waiting on the edge of their seats for Hillary to screw up? Perhaps. Is she being bullied by 'all the guys' just because she's a woman? No, she's being bullied like any presidential front-runner would be, when it's getting closer to the actual election. People seem to forget that she is currently the most likely candidate to become president in 2008. Even the cordial Obama is taking his gloves off to get some leverage on the polls.

Agreed that, to a degree, Hillary is being debated agressively, because she is the most likely candidate. But some of the attacks, she gets because she is a woman. Edwards was talking about her skirt--I don't think any candidate would dream about talking about the pants of another candidate. Furthermore ... she is often referred to by her first name; whereas the men are referred to by their last name. Of course, you could say that this is because of Bill Clinton, her husband. But since he has completely left politics (as a candidate to various positions, I mean) ... then talking about "Clinton" would naturally evoke Hillary Clinton, in any context. You can of course argue that this is unimportant ... but sexism is not necessarily calling women bitches, it's also a small, accumulations of slights. Most of them involuntary. (Which makes them all the more awful.)

Quote from: Becky on Thu 22/11/2007 00:11:07
You don't need to govern men to be a strong woman.

Becky agreed, and I completely walked into that one: what I meant was, I sometimes hear men telling me, "No, you're wrong, I think a strong woman is incredibly sexy." *wink* ... when they do not realize that they actually would have a problem, in a real life situation, to be subordinate of a woman. I chose the example of leader, because of Hillary, and how she was discussed in the article, but of course, you do not need to be a presidential candidate (or vampire hunter) to be a strong woman. :-)

Sorry for my unclear phrasing ...

Again, just because a woman is a "strong woman" doesn't mean she orders about men.  I consider myself a strong woman, I would not let myself be subordinated, but I do not subordinate my boyfriend.  You can have equal relationships...

Again I am sorry Becky if I've made it seemed like all strong women have to order men around. That is not what I am saying. What I said was men who say (who think) they are turned on by strong women, sometimes have strong feelings against those strong women that they are subordinated to (or would have strong feelings against women they would be subordinated to). This is an implication, not an equivalence. I am not saying all strong women subordinate men.

But that is not really the problem. When I say subordinate, I do not mean in a affective relationship (such as that with your boyfriend), but in a professional relationship (a boss who's a woman, etc.). And again, this has not prevented women from climbing the ladder. This has prevented them from climbing the ladder with as much as ease as men.

On another point ... men are not the only proponents of sexism. As witnessed by the John McCain supporter debacle, not all women are for advancing the cause!!

My posts are not very interesting to this conversation, actually ... I let myself get overeager with my "feminist" agenda. I think it might be as interesting to wonder why male suffering is becoming something close to a taboo?

Quote
It is not normal, that important founding documents throughout the world state laws in terms of men (the declaration of independence says "all men are created equal", etc., etc.)

The English language is gender neutral except for a hand full of pronouns such as he, she, etc.  It is correct English to use a masculine pronoun when referring to mixed groups or in a gender neutral context.   Feminine pronouns are used when specifically referring to individual(s) who are female while male pronouns are used otherwise.   So when the Declaration of Independence states that "... all men are create equal ..." the term "men" refers to everyone.   This nothing more than the correct usage of the English language.   

Also, it is on this basis, i.e. that the founding documents refer to everyone, that "progress has been made".   

Quote from: RickJ on Thu 22/11/2007 01:26:22
The English language is gender neutral except for a hand full of pronouns such as he, she, etc.  It is correct English to use a masculine pronoun when referring to mixed groups or in a gender neutral context.   Feminine pronouns are used when specifically referring to individual(s) who are female while male pronouns are used otherwise.   So when the Declaration of Independence states that "... all men are create equal ..." the term "men" refers to everyone.   This nothing more than the correct usage of the English language.

Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?

Beside, on the choice of words, why choose men, instead of people?

I am not a feminist who's advocating we rebaptised History, "Herstory" or "Theirstory"!! :) Far from me to meddle with Shakespeare's tongue ... but simply, while the gender rules make sense now, because we are used to them, they have no logical raison d'être. Or rather, I would say: they come from a choice to prioritize masculine over feminine--and it is, I feel, important, to (while not necessarily repugnating that choice), understand that.

QuoteAlso, it is on this basis, i.e. that the founding documents refer to everyone, that "progress has been made". 

When the founding documents were written, it was quite apparent, that when the founding fathers said "all men are created equal", what they meant was "all males are created equal" (and even then, they did not really think about slaves), they literally "forgot" about women---as evidenced, in short list, by the war it was for women to obtain the right to vote, and still evidenced by the failure to ratify ERA.

Woman are equal to men, but aren't the SAME as men. Now research needs to be done so we can find the difference between the cultural differences and the more fundamental, shall we say, genetic differences. Woman think about things differently then Men, my theory why is that, among other things, our theoretical optimal reproductive strategies differ so much. Now by optimal I don't mean what is best for a society, or for the individual, just what will bring about the most number of genetics one spreads around. For a man, It is the most different woman, for woman it is the most willing to commit man to help raise the best mans genes. Its a question of quality over quantity basically, maybe a bit too basically.

Quote
Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?

I am not assuming anything just stating facts which you also acknowledge.    The writings in question conform to standard usage of the language at the time of the writing.   I'm not an expert on the origins of English grammar but as you say other languages, in addition to English, use masculine pronouns to refer to all.

Quote
Beside, on the choice of words, why choose men, instead of people?

Quote from: dictionary.com
man1      /mæn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural men, verb, manned, man·ning, interjection
-noun
1.   an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.   a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3.   the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4.   a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.

peo·ple      /ˈpipəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pee-puhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ples for 4, verb, -pled, -pling.
â€"noun
1.   persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
2.   persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
3.   human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
4.   the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.

It would either usage would be correct, and so the author would be free to choose.    However if you read the definitions of both words above you will see that "people" is commonly used to refer to subsets of the human race whereas  "man or men"  cannot be used to refer to a subset of the human race (except of course when used to refer to one or more adult males).    Had the word "people" been used then one could ask "Which people?"  After all at the time women didn't vote and blacks were enslaved, so clearly they would not have been the people referred to in the document?    When they said "men", if they had meant only white adult males then they could have easily said "all white adult males are created equal".  Since women and slaves didn't vote or have any political power at the time and if what you say was true then there would have been no opposition.

In the context of "all men are created equal",  which implies a creator and which is explicitly acknowledged in the subsequent phrase "endowed by their creator ...", IMHO, "God created man" is a more appropriate choice than "God created all the people".   For those who don't know the significance of  The Declaration of Independence, this was the document sent to the King of England stating that the American colonies would no longer accept his rule.  They justified their actions by invoking a higher authority, God.  In short "God created us and gave us certain rights and nobody, not even a king can take them away".   

I'm trying to think of an example where "God" and "man" are used together to refer to adult males but curiously I can't think of any.   ;)

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
here is an example from an old book, where man is used to refer to all of mankind, humanity, people, not just members of the male gender. Not all translations use Man some us Humans some probably even use People. but it is still a good example of how Man can mean everybody of the Homo Sapiens species in the English language. Going rather off topic, this is why I refer to God as He, even though I belive He isn't just He. I believe God is some sort of person, and we only refer to non-people as 'it'.

QuoteAll women are equal to men.  It's just that men are more equal than women.

Quote from: Dowland on Thu 22/11/2007 00:48:18
I think it might be as interesting to wonder why male suffering is becoming something close to a taboo?

What makes you think it is - in this century where you can see videos of war, police brutality, and prisoner abuse over the internet?

I've come to the conclusion that people love to see other people suffer in all forms.  It doesn't matter how much pain they are in, who they are, or how old they are.  America's Funniest Home Videos has made its fortune by showing males of all ages (including young children) being bludgened in the testicles in all imaginable ways.  EVERY time, the audience laughes right along with the people in the video (including parents of the children.)

The internet is widely populated with videos showing the same thing, plus loads more of things that could NEVER be shown on TV.  People being killed, even.  Read the comments on these videos.  The majority are commentse egging it on, with the viewers basking in the violence, and only a handful of people who leave "that's fucked up," and "what's wrong with people," style posts.  I guess I finally decided that I had seen enough of this stuff for one life, so I quit browsing the funny video sites for good.

I've seen this phenomenon my entire life, and some of my earliest memories are of wondering why people are laughing at the person on the ground in agony.

The real point here is that I simply don't care anymore.  People are far more basic than we give ourselves credit for, and I venture to say that the majority of us are sick in one way or another.

And before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by. 

Quote from: Dowland on Wed 21/11/2007 23:41:10
* second the queens did not gain their position through success--they have generally not earned it through hard work, etc., it is a charge that they carry through blood, and hence they are not threatening, because it is not a position that could've been "gained" any other way.

Well, as far as I can tell most male leaders these days (prime ministers and presidents) haven't really earned their position through hard work either. ;)

QuoteAnd before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by.

Men and women are both human beings, shouldn't that be the standard of equality?

Quote from: Becky on Thu 22/11/2007 16:46:56

QuoteAnd before I end my little rant here, I have just one thing to say about the whole men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap:  Men and women are NOT equal and never will be.  They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by.

Men and women are both human beings, shouldn't that be the standard of equality?

Ideally, yes.  But it's not.  People are always dividing up into their own little cliques.  People aren't content with saying "we're all brothers and sisters," they like to be "minorities," or victims, with their own watchdog organizations to make sure nobody says anything about them that might be offensive to them, and to make sure that there are "affirmative action" laws in their favor, so they will receive special treatment and consideration.

In an equal world, a woman who wants to be a firefighter should have to pass the same mental and physical training that a man must, instead of just lowering the standard so she can pass so that everybody can PRETEND we're all equal. 

Quote from: RickJ on Thu 22/11/2007 03:50:05

Quote
Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?

I am not assuming anything just stating facts which you also acknowledge.    The writings in question conform to standard usage of the language at the time of the writing.   I'm not an expert on the origins of English grammar but as you say other languages, in addition to English, use masculine pronouns to refer to all.

You are assuming: you are stating a fact without thinking about its basis, or questionning its meaning. My question is double:
* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after);
* if they did, and if "men" is, as you say, used to refer to "men and women" (why not say "men and women"?), why is "men" the take all; why is it not "women" ... that is a choice that was made with intent (rather than randomly), as the fact that this rule also extends to many languages suggests.

QuoteIn an equal world, a woman who wants to be a firefighter should have to pass the same mental and physical training that a man must, instead of just lowering the standard so she can pass so that everybody can PRETEND we're all equal.

First of all, this is assuming that all men are buffs, and all women are frail things.

Now, physiological/biological considerations aside, how is a woman any less competent to vote than a man; how is she any less competent to have a position of authority as a man; how is she any less competent to make her own choices, and why do men think they can take upon themselves to decide what women can and can't do?

When you say women and men are entirely different, it seems like you are heavily biased by the physical aspect of the question. Does everything in our society pertain to this aspect? Do you need to be heavy weight lifter to be a neurosurgeon? And yet, neurosurgery is a very male-dominated domain ...

So yeah why do women have the ability to vote anyway?  How dare they pretend that they have any political rights! 

Raggit has told that genders are different... Not that one is better than the another, or should have more rights.

Let's be serious.

Fisically, Raggit is totally right. The world's fastest girl won' t even win the world fastest man in 100 m, although the fastest girl in Earth will probably crush 99.9% of the guys in a race. Additionaly, she should receive as much as credit and respect as the male champion.

But still, she will allways be slower.

(Change the example with rythmical gym, if you want, where the woman will allways win by her flexibility and coordination. The example still works...) Our bodies are different, no one is better, males win in some things, women in others.

As for psicology (sp?), I think that brain/mind is still too unexplored to tell if those fisical differences are present also in the psicology... I think they are in some aspects, but, as happens with the body, nothing in the female brain makes me think they are inferior or worse by any mean.

Of course men and women are different, and one man is different from another man, a woman is different from another woman.  We're all individuals.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be considered equal to one another.  So a strong, healthy, well exercised man might be stronger than a strong, healthy, well exercised woman.  So...so what?  We're all human beings.

Quote from: Dowland on Thu 22/11/2007 17:32:38
When you say women and men are entirely different, it seems like you are heavily biased by the physical aspect of the question. Does everything in our society pertain to this aspect? Do you need to be heavy weight lifter to be a neurosurgeon? And yet, neurosurgery is a very male-dominated domain ...

I disagree regarding the bias. There are neurological differences correlated with gender. What conclusions you could draw from this is uncertain considering the vast amount of stuff that we don't understand about neurology. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out that part of the statistical gender bias in certain vocations, for instance, is due to neurological factors. This does not mean that people should, in such a case, start believing that any given woman is bound to be a worse neurosurgeon/whatever than any given man, nor does it mean that we should ascribe all of the statistical bias to this cause and stop doing things about it. But it could mean that even in a perfectly equal cultural climate, we might have to live with one gender dominating a particular field, because of neurological predispositions. None of this ought to be relevant in a political discussion at this time, though, since there are other huge issues which are problems.

I wasn't speaking in regards to whether or not women should have rights to vote or govern.  Of course they should have those rights.  I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was opposed to civil rights for women from.

When I said that men and women aren't equal to each other and never will be, I was speaking biologically.  Don't think for a moment that I'm opposed to CIVIL rights for men and women.  I'm just sick of hearing "I can do anything as well as a man and better," at the same time that there are special provisions being made here.  That, in my view, is NOT civil EQUALITY.

Quote from: Becky on Thu 22/11/2007 18:16:46
Of course men and women are different, and one man is different from another man, a woman is different from another woman.  We're all individuals.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be considered equal to one another.  So a strong, healthy, well exercised man might be stronger than a strong, healthy, well exercised woman.  So...so what?  We're all human beings.

That, that we are all human beings, was something that COULD have been implied into Raggit' s post. What he said was not contradictory with what. That' s why I deffended him.

What was not implied in Raggit' s post was that women is worse or has to have less rights, so, I don' t really know the reason why he deserved those replies he got...  :)

Sorry, when I see words like:

"men/women/battle-of-the-sexes/equality crap"

"They are entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by." 

This implies that women and men are two separate species and that we'll never be comparable to one another, which is complete bull as men and women differ amongst each other as much as they differ against one another.  I don't see anywhere in Raggit's post where that says "oh, and by the way this observation has no bearing on civil equality".  Particularly when calling equality "crap". 

QuoteBut it could mean that even in a perfectly equal cultural climate, we might have to live with one gender dominating a particular field, because of neurological predispositions. None of this ought to be relevant in a political discussion at this time, though, since there are other huge issues which are problems.

Perhaps, but I can assure you the lack of female neurosurgeons is not at all due to a real or supposed belief that women are potentially less capable neurosurgeons than men.

QuoteRaggit has told that genders are different...

Raggit has argued that the physiological difference between men and women is a sufficient basis to say that men and women are "entirely different from each other with no standard in between to be judged equal by."

I disagree that the physiological component is enough to state "entire" difference. Certainly it is a difference, but it is relevant to a limited field of issues.

QuoteFisically, Raggit is totally right. The world's fastest girl won' t even win the world fastest man in 100 m, although the fastest girl in Earth will probably crush 99.9% of the guys in a race. Additionaly, she should receive as much as credit and respect as the male champion.

Be careful: the arguments you are using are potentially dangerous. How often do we get a non-black 100 m runner? And is that a basis to treat black men with a different set of rules than white men?

"Male dominance" in certain fields is the result of a unbroken cycle of social and psychological falsehoods inherent in, and perpetuated by, a complacent society.

Even in certain socities, where Women are treated as a lower sub-species of Man, the will to adapt and comply is still evident.

To fight for the "rights of women" is to fight an enemy that needs to expend no energy or resources in it's defence; the battlefield is empty.

As a man, I neither condone nor apologize for the society in which I am a benign participant.

The ideology involved in the "Battle of the Sexes", on both sides, is far too rigid and sectarian to interest me; beyond the fact that people blindly insist the battle is ongoing.

In my mind, I didn' t see that picture you saw when your read that... If you think that those sentences meant, I am with you.  :)

But maybe you should ask Raggit before...

It's weird, Becky, because before I even posted I was rooting for you in this arugment and agreeing with what you were saying. 

Oh well. 

-EDIT-

And for reiteration, I'm not opposed to civil liberties for women.  You've misinterpreted my words to mean that women's rights are crap, when what I'm saying is that FAVORITISM is crap.  Because, at least in America, what is being called "affirmative action" and "women's lib" is actually just favoritism, which is not real equality. 

Raggit, I am not in anyway implying that you are sexist. But in your haste to point out physiological difference--and I think, in your desire to express frustration at people that rigidly profess everybody is on equal footing--, you overdid it and said something you probably did not mean.

But that is not what (I feel) this is about (physiological differences). It's about why everybody laughed when that lady said about Hillary Clinton, "So, how *do* we beat the bitch?"; the belief that somehow, because she is a woman aspiring to a traditionally male job, she is worthy of a contempt? You can argue that this is Republicans talking about Democrats, but I've never heard a Republican supporter asking "How do we beat that asshole?" when referring to a male candidate ...

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 22/11/2007 19:02:57
"Male dominance" in certain fields is the result of a unbroken cycle of social and psychological falsehoods inherent in, and perpetuated by, a complacent society.

Even in certain socities, where Women are treated as a lower sub-species of Man, the will to adapt and comply is still evident.

To fight for the "rights of women" is to fight an enemy that needs to expend no energy or resources in it's defence; the battlefield is empty.

As a man, I neither condone nor apologize for the society in which I am a benign participant.

The ideology involved in the "Battle of the Sexes", on both sides, is far too rigid and sectarian to interest me; beyond the fact that people blindly insist the battle is ongoing.

As long as you are *aware* of this, I don't think it matters so much whether you try to actively change it or not. Lack of awareness is what the "Battle" is about; lack of awareness is not benign.

Ah.  Raggit I apologise for reading too much into your words.  But as Dowland said, the way you were so adamant to point out that there are physical differences made it seem like equal rights was a load of bollocks ;)  Sorry that I misinterpreted that!

No worries Becky, I tend to get very loud and vocal on these things and end up making people mad.

I should be more careful about my wording of things. :)

QuoteBe careful: the arguments you are using are potentially dangerous. How often do we get a non-black 100 m runner? And is that a basis to treat black men with a different set of rules than white men?

I don' t know if you don' t know to read, or you are missreading on purpose to go on with the discussion.

I wrote: Man and women are fisically different. I am not sure if that differences are also in psicology. One gender is not better than the other, and the same rules must be applied to both.

Clear?

Now... Black and white man are fisically different.

(Ok, ok... I know that we are "the same human race" and, there' s no way to talk about one and unique "white" race, because we have the caucasians, skandinavians, etc... Same with black, who have hutus, tutsis, Ibos, Pigmeos, Abissinians, and blah, blah...)

But the "race" we common know as black has more density in they bones... They are better preppaired for boxing, 100 m. running and everything involving power, even in stamina sports with lots of impacts, which require a strong bone and muscles like marathon... They will never be the best in sports involving a light bone, like swimming or cyclism. Their enviroment made them this way, same as made their hair curlier. The enviroment decides how our external aspect is. The differences provoqued by the enviroment can also be seen in the shape of the eyes or colour of the melanine... are you going to tell me that the colour of the melanine of Ted Danson is the same than Michael Jordan' s? Are you going to say such thing in honour to political correction?

An artic rabbit is different from an african one, no?

African: Bigger, less flury, brown, bigger ears.
Artical: Smaller, flury hair, whit, small ears to avoid lose of internal heat.

Is one rabbit fisically superior to another? No... each one is (fisically) preppaired for the place it lives.

Same with humans.

Where is the danger in this FACTS?

Now... Telling that searching grass in an arctic plain or in a desert will also change your brain is a dangerous and complete stupidity. Same with human. Saying that going to work to an office is more complicated that looking for food in the Kalahary, and that those differences are going to provoque a change in your brain transmitted via DNA is a complete stupidity. I never wrote, or thought that.

Hope it' s clear now ^_^.

Quote from: Becky on Thu 22/11/2007 18:46:03
This implies that women and men are two separate species and that we'll never be comparable to one another, which is complete bull as men and women differ amongst each other as much as they differ against one another.  I don't see anywhere in Raggit's post where that says "oh, and by the way this observation has no bearing on civil equality".  Particularly when calling equality "crap". 

It's true that there's as much variety within the groups as there is between the groups, but this does not mean that there is no statistical difference. A little thought experiment:

Let's imagine a perfect society where there is no unequality due to social reasons. It can be observed (this is fact, not part of my little conjecture here) that Broca's and Wernicke's areas (parts of the brain involved in language processing) are, on avarage, proportionally larger in women than in men. This could mean (and it does seem to be so, AFAIK) that women are more likely than men to have above-avarage language skills. It's not inconceivable that in our hypothetical perfect society, there would be a significant numerical bias towards women in fields like translation and interpreting, where pure language skill is of primary importance. Would this be something worth lobbying against? Now, I'm not saying that this effect is likely to be of any significance in a real discussion about these issues, and (particularly given the general public's unfortunate lack of understanding of statistics) it might even risk to divert attention from the more important problems. But that's no reason to deny the possibility.

In fact, I think we are facing serious risk if our arguments for civil equality rely too heavily on the scientific notion of biological equality between the sexes. If research were to further indicate the kind of thing I talk about above--which it could--it would severely compromise such arguments. We must be able to argue for and justify civil equality on an ethical basis, one independent of biology, so that the ideology can hold its ground no matter what the scientific reality turns out to be.

Yes, I have pointed out that the fact that both men and women are human beings should be the standard for political and civil equality.

Quote from: EldKatt on Thu 22/11/2007 20:49:51
In fact, I think we are facing serious risk if our arguments for civil equality rely too heavily on the scientific notion of biological equality between the sexes.

I believe there are two hazards here.

First, I'm not at all convinced that the debate of "sexist language" is actually worth the time some people put into it, because it distracts people from the actual underlying issues: it's treating symptoms rather than causes. The reason I'm saying this is because it seems to be more about political correctness than about solving anything. As an example, I used to work at a convention where chairmen were referred to as "chairs" (which sounds like furniture but I guess it's okay) but the people who were welcoming others were known as "hostesses", despite the fact that half of these hostesses were male. In other words, the organization of this convention, by unthinkingly using non-sexist language, achieved little else other than make itself look silly.

Second, it is possible, but a bad idea, to deny people opportunities for the sake of equality. This goes for both sides, obviously. The reason I'm saying this is the following: the Netherlands used to have several levels of high school, depending basically on the intelligence or scholastic aptitude of the students (which has nothing to do with gender, but the example is relevant anyway). Because the new government insisted on treating every student equally, they now have one level of high school, which proceeds too rapidly for the less able students, and is denying opportunities to the smarter students. Needless to say that doesn't work all that well.

In other words, equality is about granting opportunities to those who were held back in the past - not about denying opportunities to those who were put ahead in the past.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the consequence of seeking easy answers is to be consistently wrong.

QuoteFirst, I'm not at all convinced that the debate of "sexist language" is actually worth the time some people put into it, because it distracts people from the actual underlying issues: it's treating symptoms rather than causes.

I agree that political correctness is treating symptoms rather than causes, and that trying to change language because it is supposedly sexist is completely vain and useless. But that is not what I am trying to do. The conversation led to the fact that masculine takes all as a gender, and I was mentionning that this is, historically speaking, not mild. While it is not worth changing the English (or French, or Spanish, etc.) language, I truly believe it is important to be aware of that.

My point was not with really with the language though ... although "men" is oftentimes used to mean mankind, my point was that in the founding documents, while the founding fathers might have meant "mankind" (I was not there so I cannot tell), the documents were subsequently used and interpreted as though they had said "men" as in "males". This is not merely linguistics; this is what has shaped America for the next few centuries.

And talking about history, why are famous artists always male? Can you name from memory any Classical era composer that is a woman? Chopin? Schumann? Schubert? Beethoven? Liszt? While these are more or less commonly known names, none of them are female. Is that to say that women are biologically capable of composing music?

I apologize for my, perhaps, vehement tone. As stated before, indifference, and complacency are two of the main adversaries in this debate.

Women are not victimized because everybody is actively seeking to undercut them, but because society has evolved on sexist roots, that is has never really shed---because they are not always acknowledged. (And again, women are not the only group on the receiving end of intolerance ...)

Anyway, I *am* turning in circles, so I guess I'll quit this topic and let others express themselves. Sorry for having more or less monopolized the convo, and thanks for answering me.

As said, Dowland, male and female brains have some differences, but our knowleadge of the human psyque is too little to tell what those differences mean.

Your example about classical composers is not 100% correct, IMO, because women didn't compose more for social reasons that for psicological ones. It might be a real mental reason, since nowadays they have the same opportunities as men and seems that the number of composers is still bigger than women, but who knows? The social reason is an explanation that unfortunatelly we can't despise.

But I am sure that you' ve heard the sentence: "There won' t be wars if world was ruled by women" I am quite convinced that world would probably go better. That implies that our way of thinking and acting is different (Equal in a high percentage, but still there are little differences), but in this case, (human relationships) women win the race by three bodies. You should be happy for that. You shouldn' t jump into someone' s jugular if he/she tells you that something is "different". Beethoven, Picasso, Kennedy were waaaaaay different than the rest of the mortals. You should jump into someone' s jugular if he/she tells you that something is "worse". And I' ll be there to jump with you!  :)

Edit: I am going to try to explain how this goes with a little example. Enviroment, or the tasks we do determines how we are. An skimal is way different than a pigmeus, but both are perfect for the enviroment they life. Different human races haven' t been doing different "mental" taskes for so long time that their minds had to evolve in different directions, and they won' t, since globalization has equalized this. Maybe if we isolate a human race in the jungle for some million years they will develope a different psyque than the rest, but not now. There has been no time, a genetical change in the neural system takes too long, it' s the most complicate system to change in genetics.

Maybe million of different taks between male and female has made their psyche different... But evolution wouldn' t allow to make a "worse" gender than the other. Maybe we are a bit better into space location (for hunting and stuff...) and you are better in other things, like human relations... But this differences are tiny, in my opinion, since it was very likely that women had to make the male tasks and viceversa.

In my opinion society is gonna go nowhere if it keeps insisting on basing equality on a lack of difference. There is physical and in all likelihood mental differences between men and woman. There is physical , if cosmetic, differences between a man whose ancestors more or less originally  come from Africa and one who comes from Scandinavia. . There are cultural differences between a Buddhist man from japan and a Catholic in south America. But none of these things make racism or sexism or religious wars or discrimination, right.

Some keep saying, well we are all the same on the inside. True enough for the most part. But the differences we do have define us as human beings, make us individuals., we shouldn't just ignore them. But that is what I am seen today. The great melting pot is trying to dissolve away the differences, creating a new monoculture instead of rejoicing in the differences. We need to make a soup, with a common broth, absorbing from others, yet maintaining our cultural identities, and our heritages.  We need to say. this man is not my brother, but he is something more , my friend. We need to be friends with our neighbours, not brothers and sisters. We must have diversity, not inbreeding.
We need to strike a balance between  extreme ironic multiculturalism, were no ones culture is considered important, and a stand cannot be taken, and the evil of integration, which all it does is create a new we and a new other, without learning to live with other. We need that, to learn how to live with the other.

Because though some people might say those differences are unimportant, that is tantamount untrue. Not to mention insulting to the people who hold those beliefs, who have those differences. They find them very important indeed. We need to live with the differences of others and be willing to learn from them, but not become them. We need to learn to happily coexist, not merely tolerate them. We cannot keep saying the differences aren't real, because even the cultural ones, are real to the people who have them.

Lets make soup, not mush and not war.

Quote


   
   
Re: We love to watch women suffer. Being women, they do it so beautifully...
« Reply #32 on: Yesterday at 09:32:38am »    Reply with quote
Quote from: RickJ on November 21, 2007, 07:50:05 PM
Quote
Agreed, about your linguistic point: it similar in other languages where masculin takes all. But this is not a gender neutral language. You have to ask yourself, at one point, why the "neutral" in a language coincides with the male--why are you assuming this rule is purely academic?
I am not assuming anything just stating facts which you also acknowledge.    The writings in question conform to standard usage of the language at the time of the writing.   I'm not an expert on the origins of English grammar but as you say other languages, in addition to English, use masculine pronouns to refer to all.

You are assuming: you are stating a fact without thinking about its basis, or questionning its meaning. My question is double:
* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after); ...

Of course they meant the entire human race, they could not have meant anything else.  The word "man" when used in this context means the entire human race.  In fact that's all it meant in any context until about a 1000 years ago when "adult males" was included as an alternative definition (see the Online Etymological Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=man&searchmode=none)).   

It is plain for any educated person who reads The Declaration of Independence with an open mind what the writers' purpose and meaning was.  It's basically a letter to the king of England telling him to piss-off.  What purpose would be served making a distinction between men and women as you suggest they did.   Do you really believe that the people who wrote the declaration were willing to let the King continue to rule over their wives and children?   Clearly their purpose was to communicate to the King that all of the people (i.e. men, women, children, etc) of the colonies wanted their independence from the King's rule.  Any other interpretation is just plain silly.   

Just take a look at the first two sentences from  the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm).  The first sentence mentions "the course of human events",  "one people dissolving political bands which have connected them to another", "the Law's of Nature", "Nature's God", and "mankind".   Here is the entire sentence:

"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Where is the distinction between male and female members of the human race? It seems to be talking about everyone doesn't it?
This sets the context for at least the next sentence doesn't it?   The very next sentence is where the offending word "men" occurs twice.  The first instance occurs in the phrase "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."    If you are saying that the writers meant men="adult males" then are you also that they believed that God created and gave rights, such as life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,  only to adult males.   The context does not support this nor is there any evidence that any of the authors or signers of the Declaration held any such beliefs.   You can look here (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/account/index.htm) to read Jefferson's account of the events leading up to the writing and signing of the declaration.   There is no mention anywhere of this issue.  It simply was not part of the discussion.   

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â€" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

The second occurrence admittedly catches one's modern eye when it says "... Governments are instituted among Men ...".   But just because governments of the time consisted primarily of adult males doesn't mean that this phrase is referring to  only adult males.   It is used in the context of everyone  and indeed this is reaffirmed in the same sentence when "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and the "Right of the People"  are mentioned. 

Again, this was the document sent to King George telling him that the American colonies would no longer accept his rule and  the reasons why.   There was no reason for, or purpose to be served by, making a distinction between adult males and everybody else.  They did not intend that King George continue to rule their wives and children and it is absolutely absurd to think otherwise.   

Quote
* did the founders really mean all mankind when they said "men" (and if so, you have not answered my questions as to why women were only given right to vote in 1920--i.e.: centuries after); ...

Why didn't women vote until 1920, Hmm let'seee now.  First of all it's not correct to say that women had no voting rights in the US before 1920.  According to the Women's History Website (http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa031600a.htm) progress on women's voting rights began in 1776 the same year the Declaration of Independence was signed.  The first progress in Britian who did not subscribe to the US's founding documents seems to have been in 1869, almost a hundred years later.   In all fairness, it should be noted this website seems to have more details about the US than other countries and so it is possible there are other British events pre-dating 1869 that are not listed.  The list below is taken from the Women's History Website at these URLs.

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_1.htm (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_1.htm)
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_2.htm (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_2.htm)
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_3.htm (http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline_3.htm)
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa031600a.htm

1776: US Declaration of Independence
1776: New Jersey gives the vote to women owning more than $250.
1781: US Constitution Ratified
1837: Kentucky gives some women suffrage in school elections. (source)
1861: Kansas enters the Union; the new state gives its women the right to vote in local school elections.
1869: Britain grants unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections
1869: Wyoming territory constitution grants women the right to vote and to hold public office.  (more more)
1870: Utah territory gives full suffrage to women. (more)
1881: Some Scottish women get the right to vote in local elections.
1893: The male electorate in Colorado votes "yes" on woman suffrage. (more more)
1894: Some cities in Kentucky and Ohio give women the vote in school board elections. (more)
1894: The United Kingdom expands women's voting rights to married women in local but not national elections.
1895: Utah amends its constitution to grant women suffrage.  (more)
1896: Idaho adopts a constitutional amendment granting suffrage to women.  (more more)
1902: Kentucky repeals limited school board election voting rights for women. (more)
1910: Washington state votes for woman suffrage.  (more more)
1911: California gives women the vote.  (more more)
1912: Male electorates in Michigan, Kansas, Oregon and Arizona approve state constitutional amendments for woman suffrage.
1912: Kentucky restores limited voting rights for women in school board elections. (more)
1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to women of age 30 and older and men age 21 and older.
1920: On August 26, a constitutional amendment is adopted when Tennessee ratifies it, granting full woman suffrage in all states
1928: The United Kingdom grants equal voting rights to women.

Take a look at the URL's above, they have a world wide time line with all countries included.   If what you suggest were true then you would expect that the US progress would be retarded in comparison to other countries who were not hampered by the language in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.  However this does not seem to be the case at all.   In fact, if anything the US was the leader of the progress.   Wiki-pedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage) confirms this notion in it's Women's Suffrage Article which says that "the term women's suffrage refers to the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending suffrage â€" the right to vote â€" to women. The movement's origins are usually traced to the United States in the 1820s. In the following century it spread throughout the European and European-colonised ..."

Instead of asking why it took so long in the US, perhaps it would be better to ask why it took so long in other places, especially the ones where the idea that "all men are created equal",  (i.e. "men"="human Beings") is not a widely accepted truth.  Here is the rest of the time line picking up again in the 1960s.   Why did it take these countries soooo long?  And what about places like Saudia Arabia and other Islamic countries who don't even allow women to go out of the house unless they put a bag over their head?   Why are all women's rights groups so silent about this?  The silence is deafening isn't it?   

1962: Australia adopts full woman suffrage (a few restrictions remain)
1963: Women in Morocco, Congo, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kenya gain suffrage. (more)
1964: Sudan adopts woman suffrage. (more)
1964: The Bahamas adopts full suffrage with restrictions. (more)
1965: Women gain full suffrage in Afghanistan, Botswana and Lesotho. (more)
1967: Ecuador adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1968: Full woman suffrage adopted in Swaziland. (more)
1970: Yemen adopts full suffrage. (more)
1970: Andorra permits women to vote. (more)
1971: Switzerland adopts woman suffrage, and the United States lowers the voting age for both men and women to eighteen. (more)
1972: Bangladesh grants woman suffrage. (more)
1973: Full suffrage granted to women in Bahrain. (more)
1973: Women permitted to stand for election in Andover and San Marino. (more)
1974: Jordan and the Solomon Islands extend suffrage to women. (more)
1975: Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique give suffrage to women. (more)
1976: Portugal adopts full woman suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: The Republic of Moldova adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: Women in Zimbabwe are able to stand for election. (more
1980: Iran gives women the vote. (more)
1984: Full suffrage granted to women of Liechtenstein. (more)
1986: Central African Republic adopts woman suffrage. (more)
1990: Samoan women gain full suffrage. (more)
1994: Kazakhstan grants women full suffrage. (more)
2005: Kuwaiti Parliament grants women of Kuwait full suffrage.

Quote
My point was not with really with the language though ... although "men" is often times used to mean mankind, my point was that in the founding documents, while the founding fathers might have meant "mankind" (I was not there so I cannot tell), the documents were subsequently used and interpreted as though they had said "men" as in "males". This is not merely linguistics; this is what has shaped America for the next few centuries

I'm glad you concede my point regarding the language of the Declaration of independence.   Now you assert that the Declaration of Independence  was used and interpreted as thought it had said "men" as in "adult males" but you don't mention used by whom and how they used them to shape the US for the first few centuries?   With regard to women's voting rights this is clearly not the case.    The status quo when the US was founded was that women did not vote anywhere in the world.   The wiki-pedia says that that notion started here in the US a few decades after the US Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html) was ratified.   

Your assertion is also very curious because the word "men" or any other reference or distinction between male and female individuals only occurs twice in the Declaration of Independence and nowhere in the US Constitution, except the 19th amendment which states that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.".  The US constitution begins with the phrase "We the people" and uses the word "person" or "persons" when referring to individuals.  You keep referring to "the founding documents" so I wonder what documents other than the declaration are you referring to???     

With regard to the idea of people interpreting things to fit their own agenda and to achieve their own ends... The world is full of gullible people and scoundrels who will take advantage of them by twisting language and facts.    ;)   

Quote
* if they did, and if "men" is, as you say, used to refer to "men and women" (why not say "men and women"?), why is "men" the take all; why is it not "women" ... that is a choice that was made with intent (rather than randomly), as the fact that this rule also extends to many languages suggests.

You are confusing gender (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender) and sex (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex)  ;).   Sex is the distinction between male and female members of a given species.   Gender refers to the way a given language classifies and uses nouns.  The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20.   Although there is some correlation between gender and sex in some languages they are not the same thing.   

In the case of the word "man" one only need to consult an authority on  etymology to find the answer.  The origin of the word "man" comes from Old English and meant "human beings".   In Late Old English, c1000, wer and wif were used to distinguish between the sexes.  So you would have had man, werman, and wifman (I believe).  "Wer" began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by "man".   Wifman morphed into wimman and the into woman.   The plural, women, is still pronounced as "wimmen" in some places.   See here (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=man&searchmode=none) and here (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=woman&searchmode=none).

It doesn't make much sense to me to whine about a language's rules of grammar,  if you don't like it choose another language and get on with your life.   It's silly to pretend that there is/was some kind of political motivation behind the origin of a language's grammar, as these rules came into practice many centuries before our current political issues came into being or were even contemplated.   IMHO, invaders, conquerors, foreign trade, popular culture, and human quirky-ness are the genesis of languages and their rules.  To attribute the origin of languages to any kind of systematic and well thought out process, quite frankly, gives humanity far more credit than it deserves.

[edit]fix link & spelling

Quote from: RickJ on Sat 24/11/2007 00:16:11
1963: Women in Morocco, Congo, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kenya gain suffrage. (more)
1964: The Bahamas adopts full suffrage with restrictions. (more)
1965: Women gain full suffrage in Afghanistan, Botswana and Lesotho. (more)
1968: Full woman suffrage adopted in Swaziland. (more)
1972: Bangladesh grants woman suffrage. (more)
1974: Jordan and the Solomon Islands extend suffrage to women. (more)
1975: Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique give suffrage to women. (more)
1976: Portugal adopts full woman suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: The Republic of Moldova adopts full suffrage with a few restrictions. (more)
1978: Women in Zimbabwe are able to stand for election. (more

Hey RickJ!
This whole topic seems a bit weird to me, but I just wanted to point out something I noticed in your post. The dates you give for Kenya, The Bahamas, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Bangladesh, The Solomon Islands, Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique, are actually the dates that those countries obtained independence, so the data is a little misleading. Even for the other countries, most of the dates are either very close to the dates they obtained independence, or the date they overthrew some dictatorship, or had some revolution against the king, or communism was removed. I'm not arguing against or for what you are saying, just wishing to point out something.

And now for the other weirdness: About men being whacked on the bollocks, way back on the 1st page- I find it overdone the way some people scream and moan for hours afterwards, like they're trying to prove something. The few times I've been hit, I don't lie on the floor writhing in pain and moaning for the next hour. I punch back, and if it is excessively painful, sit down for a few seconds, after which the pain subsides.

About loving to watch women suffer, the whole thing seems absurd to me. Unless you are into some sort of S&M thing, I don't see how the idea is valid. I admit, I enjoy watching conflict, and maybe that makes me evil, but can't really say I have a preference for female suffering. As for liking strong women, I can definitely say I dislike 'weak' women, who seem to feel the need to act all 'girly' and wish to be 'protected' by men and pretend that they can't do anything. Thankfully, I've met very few of these kind of people.

Besides, we love seen all OTHER people suffer, not just woman. Some mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude]
Schadenfreude[/url] And we all have done this as kids, at the very least. I  would maintain that a significant part of the feeling of accomplishment is  at least INDIRECTLY Schadenfreude. Disagree? then what if someone came up to you and said "You WIN!" and gave you a 100 dollars, or local currency equivalent. After you got over the initial suspicion  you would be pretty happy, right? But what if you saw him go to everybody in he met ,and did the same thing. You wouldn't feel as happy, huh. And you would be downright sad, if he went up to someone else and gave them $1000.
Lesson: despite all the urgings Age of Aquarius junkies, plus many religious texts, to win, really win, someone else has to lose! ERGO, a significant part of happieness, (and I mean that in the way the diet pill ads WANT you to think,) comes from watching other people suffer, and not just woman.

Quote from: RickJ on Sat 24/11/2007 00:16:11
You are confusing gender (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender) and sex (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex)  ;).   Sex is the distinction between male and female members of a given species.   Gender refers to the way a given language classifies and uses nouns.  The number of genders in different languages varies from 2 to more than 20.   Although there is some correlation between gender and sex in some languages they are not the same thing.

You are confusing linguistics with everything else. ;) In the context of discussions like this, "gender" is nowadays often used to mean the distinction between male and females, although focusing more on the psychological and social aspects (as in "gender identity", "gender roles", etc.), where "sex" is more of a biological and physiological term, as you say. Then there's grammatical gender, which is a completely different thing, yeah. But characterizing the non-linguistic usage of the word "gender" as somehow incorrect is pretty misleading. The other, separate meaning (above) is well-established and standard in the relevant fields. More to the point, the English language lost its grammatical gender system AFAIK almost a millennium ago (Old English has a German-like gender system, whereas Middle English does not), so I can assure you that whatever anyone here is talking about it's probably not grammatical gender.

As for the gender-related ("gender" in the non-linguistic sense) constructs that do exist in English, I agree that they're somewhat irrelevant to this issue, for all practical purposes: they're probably not in any way a cause of or contributor to any bad things happening. However, I do believe that they are likely to be a symptom, or a consequence, of the real state of things. Saying that they've got nothing to do with social factors is BS. Saying that they caused the social factors in the first place is fallacious, but you don't have to go that far.

Quote from: Babar
This whole topic seems a bit weird to me, but I just wanted to point out something I noticed in your post. The dates you give for Kenya, The Bahamas, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Bangladesh, The Solomon Islands, Angola, Cape Verde and Mozambique, are actually the dates that those countries obtained independence, so the data is a little misleading. Even for the other countries, most of the dates are either very close to the dates they obtained independence, or the date they overthrew some dictatorship, or had some revolution against the king, or communism was removed. I'm not arguing against or for what you are saying, just wishing to point out something.

Interesting point Babar, I wasn't aware of the other events around those dates.  The information is from the Women's History page at About.com.    It's not surprising, however,  that people, including women  ;), gain rights and freedoms shortly after overthrowing a repressive government.   Also, as I have mentioned in my previous post, there seems to be more details about the US than other countries.  I would suppose this is because the author(s) are from the US and know more about their home country than they do about others.   Perhaps in cases where the actual date is not known but it was known that the change took place under the new government, they took the liberty of using the independence date. 

Quote from: EldKatt
You are confusing linguistics with everything else.

When Dowland asks "Why does masculine take all?" he is referring to the English Language rules of grammar, and possibly others, that prescribe the use masculine gender forms of pronouns when the sex of the individual(s) to which the pronoun refers is not known.    For example, I don't if Dowland is male or female so the correct way of referring to him in English is to use the masculine gender pronouns he, him, his.   He is upset because he incorrectly equates the default usage of masculine gender pronouns with favoritism or preference for indivduals of the male sex.   It appears the he does not understand that gender and sex are two different things nor does he appear to know which one to use in a given situation. 

Now you assert that this confusion is over linguistcis rather than gender.   Linguistics is the study of the entire language, it's origins, constructs, grammar, etc, so this would obviously include gender.  However, the discussion, Dowland and I are having is only concerned with the English Language's rules regarding the use of gender and whether or not this usage  favors one sex over the other.   The definition of both terms is shown below; anyone can see that "gender" is what the discussion is specifically about and is therefore the more precise and therefore preferable term. 

Quote from: American Heritage Dictionary
lin·guis·tics       (lĭng-gwĭs'tĭks)  Pronunciation Key
n.   (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics.

gen·der       (jěn'dər)  Pronunciation Key
n. 
A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.

Quote from: EldKatt
In the context of discussions like this, "gender" is nowadays often used to mean the distinction between male and females, although focusing more on the psychological and social aspects (as in "gender identity", "gender roles", etc.), ...

While it may be true that "gender" is often used in this way that doesn't make it the correct way.  Why is this important you may ask?   It's an old and common tactic for groups who want to gain power and privilege to redefine the language to gain advantage.  Orwell and Huxley make mention of this in their novel "1984" and "Brave new World"; one of them even coined a term for it "somethingspeak", can't remember what "something" was.   

So in your examples what you are really talking about are "sexual identity" and "sexual roles".    You are correct that these are psychological issues;  they have a word for people who believe they are somebody who they are not.   And if you look at the issues in the light of clear language there isn't much chance groups representing such people to acquire political power or privilege.    Before anyone starts up about how we need to be kind, compassionate,  and  caring about people with problems, let me just say that I don't think exploiting peoples problems to gain political power and privilege is neither kind nor compassionate.

Quote
But characterizing the non-linguistic usage of the word "gender" as somehow incorrect is pretty misleading.

Actually just the opposite is true.  It's misleading and cynical to use imprecise terms or to use terms incorrectly so as to obfuscate the facts to persuade the masses to one's point of view.

Quote
The other, separate meaning (above) is well-established and standard in the relevant fields. More to the point, the English language lost its grammatical gender system AFAIK almost a millennium ago (Old English has a German-like gender system, whereas Middle English does not), so I can assure you that whatever anyone here is talking about it's probably not grammatical gender.

From my first post ...

Quote from: RickJ
The English language is gender neutral except for a hand full of pronouns such as he, she, etc.  It is correct English to use a masculine pronoun when referring to mixed groups or in a gender neutral context.   Feminine pronouns are used when specifically referring to individual(s) who are female while male pronouns are used otherwise.   So when the Declaration of Independence states that "... all men are create equal ..." the term "men" refers to everyone.   This nothing more than the correct usage of the English language.   

By and large, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've stated my opinion and understanding of things. Do what you like with it. Kthx.

Plato had some interesting perspective in Book 5 of the Republic.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.6.v.html

"You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.

And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of administration in a state which a woman has because she is a woman, or which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.

Very true.
Then are we to impose all our enactments on men and none of them on women?

That will never do.
One woman has a gift of healing, another not; one is a musician, and another has no music in her nature?

Very true.
And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, and another is unwarlike and hates gymnastics?

Certainly.
And one woman is a philosopher, and another is an enemy of philosophy; one has spirit, and another is without spirit?

That is also true.
Then one woman will have the temper of a guardian, and another not. Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by differences of this sort?

Yes.
Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian; they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness. "