Progressive Boink :: View topic

I hate gay people
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Progressive Boink Forum Index
» Wrestling Is Not A Sport And Neither Is NASCAR - The Sports & Wrestling Forum

Author

Message

SundownMotel
Aschenbach

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1334

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 12:12 pm Post subject:

Bis perhaps you'd be more comfortable referring to it as "patricentricity". _________________

Kristen
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 30 Aug 2025
Posts: 795
Location: Los Angeles

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 12:14 pm Post subject:

haven't you seen those crazy stories on Montel where the husband gets surgery to become a woman and the wife stays with him (her)? I am not sure if the women that stay with these guys are crazy and are afraid of being on their own, or they are just incredible people who can see past gender and can love unconditionally.

Personally, I would leave the lying son of a bitch.
_________________

Alicia wrote:

I don't wanna be a werewolf anymore.

Bismark
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 23 Jun 2025
Posts: 621
Location: not participating

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 12:17 pm Post subject:

SundownMotel wrote:

Bis perhaps you'd be more comfortable referring to it as "patricentricity".

Hey, I'm down with calling it the "redneck-dipshit-fundie-brigade" if you are, but I'm just saying why people might be confused about the point you're getting across.
_________________
I am facing the pet store / is it robbed / no

DGMacphee
jus put yerself out there an be fearless

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1037
Location: Aldo Kelrast's decaying anus

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 5:55 pm Post subject:

SundownMotel wrote:

DG I think you are thinking of the term "patriarchy" in the wrong way. The opposite of the term as I am using it would not be "matriarchy". That is to say, I'm not strictly speaking about a male-dominated society (although that is a huge part of it).

Bismark wrote:

I think that's the trip-up here, because the opposite of "patriarchy" would be "matriarchy." You're talking more about the alpha-male ideal permeating society, which I agree with, but the semantics of it are getting in the way.

Yeah, what Bismark said. Because an enlightened society can still be patriarchal by definition, as in the primary responsibility of families and society rests upon men where as in a matriarchy it rests upon women. But I do understand what you're saying.

I hold the belief that you can still be manly while also not being a dick about it. And I think what it comes down to is guys trying to prove something.

For example, guys have to prove their manliness by drinking a keg of beer and scoring with the cheerleader.

Or they have to prove your manliness by hating anything not hetro (don't want no one to think you're a f-a-g!) and bashing the occasional gay guy. That way everyone will know you're straight!

I think what needs to happen is for guys to understand it's not what everyone else thinks but how they define their own masculinity. I think this needs to be taught first and foremost, that guys can express their masculinity in healthy ways that reflect who they are as individuals and not as a means of one-uping others.

I've mentioned him before, but Steve Biddulph is a great writer on this topic. Read his book Manhood if you can find a copy.
_________________

Jon wrote:

What's credibility if you don't spend it on something?

SundownMotel
Aschenbach

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1334

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 6:13 pm Post subject:

Likewise I really think you should read The Will To Change by bell hooks. _________________

DGMacphee
jus put yerself out there an be fearless

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1037
Location: Aldo Kelrast's decaying anus

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 7:48 pm Post subject:

White Panther recommend that book to me a while back and I have n't picked up a copy yet. I am very interested in what she has to say but at the same time I'm a little wary. Possibly for the same reason most would be wary of, say, me writing a book on feminism.

However, there was something on her website about the book that nails it for me:

bell hooks wrote:

She finds patriarchy plays a role in most socio-sexual ills, as boys and men seek alienating sex as a substitute for the love that often seems, because of demands on families that destroy them or keep them from forming, unavailable to men: "Sex, then, becomes for most men a way of self-solacing. It is not about connecting to someone else but rather releasing their own pain."

I like that and it's very similar to what Biddulph has to say.

What's key here, I reckon, is the "men seeking alienating sex". Sex really should be about love -- not just love of your partner, but also love of your self. And it encompasses many things: exploration, respect, trust, etc.

Like I said before, too many times guys turn sex into some kind of competition, where it's "how many chicks have you slept with?" and it dries all the feeling out of it.

It's like how I hear guys say, "Yeah so-and-so is hot" but I rarely hear from guys who are truly passionate about girls, guys who talk about how girls make them feel.

And this goes back to what you were talking about on the supression of emotion in an alpha male-based culture.
_________________

Jon wrote:

What's credibility if you don't spend it on something?

webber
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 01 Nov 2025
Posts: 898

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 7:49 pm Post subject:

DGMacphee wrote:

I'm in two mind about this. I see how society can influence how someone perceives their gender, I'm also at odds with the "nothing will change under a materiarchal society" perspective. You say a matriarchal society would be based upon women's values but nothing would change. From this, I read you as saying men and women value the same things in society. Is this correct? Or have I misread you?

I am saying that in this society, "men's values" are very different from "women's values" because society dictates that men should behave like this and women should behave like that. There are no material differences in values inherent in men as opposed to women, just as there are no "black values" and "white values" present in our genes; society dictates how black and white people (should) behave. So if we were in a society that was formed with women as the hegemonic power, I believe it would be similar in that there would be clearly defined men's and women's roles, but men would be getting the short end of the stick.

DGMacphee
jus put yerself out there an be fearless

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1037
Location: Aldo Kelrast's decaying anus

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 9:48 pm Post subject:

I think this is leading to a "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" debate. Did society influence gender or was society created in part from gender?

I think both mutually feed from each other and external forces influence their relationship.

I also think society would be very different if it were a matriarchy. Last night, I asked my girlfriend (by the way, there's some news I've kept secret -- I've got a girlfriend, we've been together for a few weeks now) this question and she reckoned in a matriarchal society there'd be a move away from business/economic aspects to a more family-oriented societiy with greater focus on childcare and child development. And this in turn would have a greater effect on how our children are raised and how they percieve their gender roles. And I can see how that would affect society. For example, one of the biggest complaints in child developmnent is the absence of the father, due to time at work or just laziness. In a matriarchy, I think there'd be more encouragement for greater inclusion of the father in child-rearing, which would have a greater effect on the personal identity of their children. Fathers especially can have a greater influence on helping their kids (especially sons) define gender and sexuality.

Wouldn't this change society?
_________________

Jon wrote:

What's credibility if you don't spend it on something?

webber
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 01 Nov 2025
Posts: 898

Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2025 11:30 pm Post subject:

The reason people think of child caring as being women's work is because society has taught us that child caring is women's work. You are using the narrow gender roles that a patriarchal society has produced to predict outcomes in a scenario in which a patriarchal society does not exist. That does not make sense. There are not any clearly defined inherent patterns between gender like 'women care more about babies', because other than physically having the child and some breast feeding, there is nothing to stop men from caring more about babies. Assumptions like this make people that do not fit into the narrow gender roles worse off (for example, there are plenty of men who would like to or are primary child carers, and there are plenty of women that couldn't give a shit about babies). What I see as the ultimate goal for feminism is destroying as many of these artificial gender barriers as possible. Feminism is not attempting to put into place a matriarchal society.

DGMacphee
jus put yerself out there an be fearless

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1037
Location: Aldo Kelrast's decaying anus

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 12:51 am Post subject:

webber wrote:

The reason people think of child caring as being women's work is because society has taught us that child caring is women's work. You are using the narrow gender roles that a patriarchal society has produced to predict outcomes in a scenario in which a patriarchal society does not exist.

Dude, that came straight from my girlfriend, not me. I don't think you or I can say society put women in this narrow gender role when I've got my girlfriend saying she'd want society to be more focused upon child-rearing. Maybe society's already brainwashed her into wanting kids, or maybe she's just clucky. But a lot of the women I've talked to about this (and a lot of masculine theory I've read) seem to point to a need to focus on greater child care and development. Not only because of some maternal desire, but because people see new generations as instigators of change in society, so it's a good idea to raise them well.

Also, consider the high suicide rates among men compared to women. Four times as high in alomost 95% of countries. Most attribute this to men's displacement of himself in society, especially in work areas. Perhaps a change to in society to greater family-orientated aspects over work aspects might be better for men too. So perhaps it not a narrow gender role but maybe that women have got some good common sense to want society to focus more on child-rearing. AFter all, they're not the ones killing themselves at such a high rate.

Quote:

That does not make sense. There are not any clearly defined inherent patterns between gender like 'women care more about babies', because other than physically having the child and some breast feeding, there is nothing to stop men from caring more about babies.

There's evidence to suggest there are other biological advantages that women have over men when taking caring of children, but essentially yes there's nothing to stop men from caring more about babies. In reality though, I reckon there's more of a shift towards women in wanting to look after children as opposed to men. As a test, you could look up child support and custody statistics and find out how many deadbeat dads there are compared to Dads paying child support/want custody of their kids.

Quote:

Assumptions like this make people that do not fit into the narrow gender roles worse off (for example, there are plenty of men who would like to or are primary child carers, and there are plenty of women that couldn't give a shit about babies).

What about biological aspects and their impact upon this? Sure, a girl might want to focus more on her career than on child-rearing. However, a good point that my girlfriend brought up last night was how women only have a certain amount of time until their bodies start having problems with pregancy. Some women even show major signs of pregnacy problems as early as their 30s. Sacrificing a career for children is a big concern for a lot of women because it might get to a point where it's too late. Thus, they've sacrificed a choice.

I don't think this is society placing women in a narrow gender role. I think their own bodies and minds saying "it could be too late" has a large part to do with it. You know all those stories in the new about a 70 year-old giving birth to triplets? You probably know they have those stories because it's a very, very, very rare thing to happen.

Quote:

What I see as the ultimate goal for feminism is destroying as many of these artificial gender barriers as possible. Feminism is not attempting to put into place a matriarchal society.

Firstly, I think it's interesting for you to say you have an ultimate goal for feminism. Why do you think you should have an ultimate goal for something that doesn't include you? Isn't it up to women to define feminism? I mean, if you saying "this should be the goal for feminism", aren't you defining it the same way you say society is defining women? (In essence, I'm saying you're sounding a little contradictory here).

Besides, to suggest that gender barriers are artificial is not being realistic. There are biological aspects that influence how both genders perceive the and value the world, not just sociological aspects. To think otherwise is a little naive.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying it's completely biology. But I think you've placed way too much importance upon society's impact upon gender. I think there are other things with an impact.

Also, what's being discussed here is not feminism trying to gain dominance. In fact, feminism has little to do with it. What we are saying is the patriarchal system isn't working so I suggested what about a matriarchal system instead? That's very different to feminism putting in place a matriarchal system.
_________________

Jon wrote:

What's credibility if you don't spend it on something?

Kristen
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 30 Aug 2025
Posts: 795
Location: Los Angeles

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 7:02 am Post subject:

I just want to say that, as of now, I don't want children but several women have told me that around the age of 27 or so some crazy thing kicks in where you WANT to have kids no matter what. It's mostly hormonal and less to do with society.

That being said, a woman can't have it all. I know I can't have a successful career AND be a good mother. That is the thing that is really perplexing to me. My mom made more money than my dad did when I was born but she quit her job to take care of me. At the time she was glad to do so but when I was old enough to look after myself I sensed that she wished she could have pursued more things. It makes me mad that one day I will have to choose one or the other.
_________________

Alicia wrote:

I don't wanna be a werewolf anymore.

MrGuse
CUP OF WATER

Joined: 18 Jan 2026
Posts: 39

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 11:23 am Post subject:

B wrote:

Which is funny, because a line out of context in the middle of Leviticus is enough motivation to want to change gigantic sections of our laws and goverment to prohibit the existence of gay people, but Jesus specifically saying "DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE IT'S BAD YOU GUYS" in red letters several times is too vague.

This is an interesting convo, but I wanted to bring something up on this line:

There's more than 1 place in the Bible where homosexuality is directly referred to as bad... including a couple in the New Testament (Matthew and Romans, specifically) and several in the Old Testament.

Not saying it's right, but the "it's an abomination" line from Leviticus is far from the only line.

Again, I don't agree with it, but there's plenty of Biblical defense of the "homosexuality is wrong to God" defense.

Mike
The king of pop

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1338
Location: Weird NJ

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 11:55 am Post subject:

Doesn't matter. Not for Christians, anyway. The not judging part takes precedence, and "You are going to hell for being a Yankee" is just shitty witnessing.
_________________

Kyle wrote:

but as soon as Meth took the stage, the show took a high-octane turn, like a pimped-out sports car.

B
=Best!!11

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1326
Location: Cleveland, OH

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 12:21 pm Post subject:

MrGuse wrote:

There's more than 1 place in the Bible where homosexuality is directly referred to as bad... including a couple in the New Testament (Matthew and Romans, specifically) and several in the Old Testament.

I've read the Bible in its entirety three times. Trust me, if I wanted to prove that snakes had arms I could find about four examples to prove my point in the Bible.
_________________

Jerry Dooper's True Life, Chapter One wrote:

im still angry Bloodsport never got n oscer

MrGuse
CUP OF WATER

Joined: 18 Jan 2026
Posts: 39

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 4:29 pm Post subject:

Point taken. Again, it's a common argument I hear (specifically saying "Leviticus") as if it's the only argument. <~~ I hate sentence structure.

Anywho, if you're already aware of "da book" then I'll pipe back down.

Mike wrote:

Doesn't matter. Not for Christians, anyway. The not judging part takes precedence, and "You are going to hell for being a Yankee" is just shitty witnessing.

Shit, almost missed this. I'm going to ask a stupid question here, so don't take my head off... but I can't seem to remember the Christ Parable Hierarchy right off hand. Where is this?

-edit-
Instead of taking out my previous question, I'll just elaborate on my new thoughts. Christ never mentions it one way or another, but says not to judge. Everything after that was "the student" speaking, therefore a lesser opinion. I think that was your point. If so, kudos.

fergusnoodle
CUP OF WATER

Joined: 05 Jul 2025
Posts: 32
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 5:29 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Well I felt that I have been put in a narrow gender role and I am a woman so I guess I am allowed to say that? It is interesting that Webber is not allowed to have any ideas about women, I mean he has been going out with one for five years and am pretty sure most of his idea about women have come from me who is also a woman so I would say they are just as valid as what your girlfriend has to say. I don’t think if we lived in matriarchy it would be more focused upon child rearing.

Quote:

“More than four times as many men as women die by suicide; but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression.”

Quote:

I don't think this is society placing women in a narrow gender role. I think their own bodies and minds saying "it could be too late" has a large part to do with it. You know all those stories in the new about a 70 year-old giving birth to triplets? You probably know they have those stories because it's a very, very, very rare thing to happen.

If women’s minds want them to have babies so very much how come the birth rate has fallen so much since birth control has become (mostly) easily available?

Quote:

The patriarchy we live in also hurts men. Who ever said that Feminism didn’t include men? Did you say that? Well under your reasoning you should not have anything to do with feminism. Why is it unrealistic to suggest that gender barriers are artificial? This is one of the main ideas of radical feminism. I think gender is entirely created by society. The thing I base this on is admittedly just how I have felt growing up and the people I know but since your arguments seem to consist of hey my girlfriend said this about women so it has more weight than whatever Webber said. Never once in my life had I thought about having babies. Babies repulse me, actually the idea of having one and breast feeding it makes me feel physically ill. Luckily since I have been an adult I have had scores of people tell me that I am extremely unnatural and also a freak. That one day magically I will want to have babies stay at home and be a housewife. In fact I will want to have more babies than the other women who want babies because I need to be punished for the ‘unnatural’ way I used to think. One way I have learnt to deal with this is tell the (mostly) men that are telling me this that I am pretty sure that one day they will want to have a sex change and become women. Because this is what men do right? The usual response is hey don’t talk about my genitals! That’s rude!

Quote:

Also, what's being discussed here is not feminism trying to gain dominance. In fact, feminism has little to do with it. What we are saying is the patriarchal system isn't working so I suggested what about a matriarchal system instead? That's very different to feminism putting in place a matriarchal system.

A matriarchal system would not be any better. The best system would surely be to erase power structures and reject gender roles and let people get on with whatever the hell they want to be doing. But of course there are people who say that will never work! There needs to be someone in control! But I think that is just the patriarchy talking through them!

webber
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 01 Nov 2025
Posts: 898

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 5:45 pm Post subject:

DGMacphee wrote:

Dude, I'm not saying women can't really want to have children, I am just saying it is ultimately harmful to everyone to assume that all women want to have children (and that all men hate the responsibilities of child-rearing). It's cool if your girlfriend likes kids, but she shouldn't assume from that that my girlfriend wants kids.

Quote:

Maybe society's already brainwashed her into wanting kids, or maybe she's just clucky.

What I was saying in the previous post is that I think in a large part this is the same thing.
(edit: in retrospect this has come across as needlessly provocative and offensive. it may not be the same thing for your girlfriend in particular, but i think a large portion of women being clucky in society in general is caused by that society)

Quote:

Also, consider the high suicide rates among men compared to women. Four times as high in alomost 95% of countries. Most attribute this to men's displacement of himself in society, especially in work areas. Perhaps a change to in society to greater family-orientated aspects over work aspects might be better for men too. So perhaps it not a narrow gender role but maybe that women have got some good common sense to want society to focus more on child-rearing. AFter all, they're not the ones killing themselves at such a high rate.

Well, they are the ones attempting to kill themselves at a far higher rate! Yes, I completely agree that the patriarchy hurts men as well as women. I think many men would love to stay home and look after the kids, but can't, because the woman doesn't bring in enough money despite doing the same job, or in the custody battle he lost because child-raising is women's work, or because he is sick of staying at work 60 hours a week because that is what work culture tells is will get you ahead. This is why it would be good to do away with crude gender roles!

Quote:

This is not a test, because my whole point is that there is a culture that says that men do not want to raise kids, and if you do want to you must be somehow feminine/gay/an "other". I could say that black people are criminals and then point to higher rates of incarceration or say that they are stupid and point to lower IQ/SAT scores. But I am sure you see that this would not be helpful or prove my point.

Quote:

There are some things I don't like about discourse on career women and mothers:
1. It is a false binary for many people, and would be one for many more people if there were good childcare policies/women got paid a fair income
2. It assumes that ALL women want to have babies, and that if you are having a career it is because you are either pretending to be a man (something PREPOSTEROUS because you do not have a penis how could you possibly join the business elite?) or because you are GIVING UP a baby. This hurts women who do not want children by making them seem less womenly, but it also hurts men because it makes child-rearing something men should not want to do.

But with those caveats in mind, you are right. Some women want to have a child before they are 30 and they totally should be able to. And I think it is reasonable in a civilised society that if they then want to go back in the workforce or go to uni or just stay at home and cook for daddy they should be given as many opportunities as possible to do that too.

Quote:

Feminism includes EVERYONE. I think this is probably the biggest misconception about feminism and it is the one that hurts its acceptance the most. All the gender roles I have talked about hurt men as well as women, you can see that right? I mean, all that stuff that you are interested in about men being depressed because they are losing their traditional roles in life and things, that is all come about because they have narrow gender roles. These people are oppressed by the patriarchy as much as women are. And if these people argue for the abolition of gender roles they are as much feminists as any women.

But if you are saying that some of modern feminism's primary goals are not to:
1. Get people to recognise that gender is a societal construct; and
2. Do away with that societal construct
then I am not sure what feminist texts you are reading? There are plenty of men and transgender people involved in the feminist movement; the whole point of the movement is trying to be as inclusive as possible.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you're really saying this, but just in case you are, FEMINISM IS NOT TRYING TO PUT INTO PLACE A MATRIARCHAL SYSTEM. If you accept that gender is generally about power and that we have invented these power roles ourselves (as most feminists I have read seem to), it would be ludicrous to then advocate a similar power structure. This is what I am saying: that a matriarchal system would not be more beneficial for us than a patriarchal system.

P.S. I am wondering, if you agree with the idea of the existence of a patriarchy and see value in the idea of it changing to a matriarchy, what difference would this make if gender were not a malleable construct? Women would still be at home looking after the babies and stripping and kissing other ladies to empower themselves and men would still be out huntin and watching sport and masturbating over porn because that is what men and women do right? Biological imperatives and all that.

Last edited by webber on Sat Feb 24, 2025 7:10 pm; edited 3 times in total

webber
CUP OF WATER WITH A HANDFUL OF SUGAR

Joined: 01 Nov 2025
Posts: 898

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 5:53 pm Post subject:

Another thing I am wondering is whether DG (or other people in this thread) see merit in the 'race is a societal construct' discourse of the modern civil rights movement? Because as far as I see they are almost exactly the same arguments, but the race-based one seems to come up against less opposition. Does this mean that sexism is more entrenched in society than racism?

fergusnoodle
CUP OF WATER

Joined: 05 Jul 2025
Posts: 32
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2025 5:55 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Ugh I hear that, that is the bane of my fucking life people telling me bullshit like that. Luckily I have always tried to ignore it and just listened to my mother who herself never really wanted to have children, they happened accidentally and she didn’t mind it too much, but she always tells me that if she were me living now in these times no way would she get married and have children. If it was mostly hormonal and less to do with society birth rates would remain constant I would think. Societal changes would not change them the way they seem to have done.

Quote:

That being said, a woman can't have it all. I know I can't have a successful career AND be a good mother. That is the thing that is really perplexing to me. My mom made more money than my dad did when I was born but she quit her job to take care of me. At the time she was glad to do so but when I was old enough to look after myself I sensed that she wished she could have pursued more things. It makes me mad that one day I will have to choose one or the other.

I think it depends on how you define ‘good mother’. My mother was the best mother ever she worked all through my brother’s childhood and he turned out great. He is chemical engineer! He makes gas! She had to lie to employers in order to get a job because in the 70s it just wasn’t cool to have a job and a baby which is a whole other issue that we don’t have time for and don’t even start me on how she didn’t wear a wedding ring and she had a baby! WHAT A SLUT! Anyway she did take a few years off when she had me but went back to work when I went to school and because of all this she had enough super to retire when she was fifty five. Anyway this is not a story about my Mum, though she is pretty great. I don’t think you will have to choose I think it can be a juggling act and it can be difficult but if you want to have a career and a child all you need is a supportive partner and to be able to ignore the criticism that will be fired your way from ‘people’ in ‘society’ telling you what women are ‘meant’ to do and ‘not meant’ to do.

DGMacphee
jus put yerself out there an be fearless

Joined: 14 Jun 2025
Posts: 1037
Location: Aldo Kelrast's decaying anus

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2025 11:32 am Post subject:

Whew, lot to reply to. I'll try and make this as short as possible.

Fergus and webber: I'm not suggesting that ALL women are geared towards child-rearing, but I do think there's evidence to suggest more would prefer to see a greater focus on family (or a better term: "personal") aspects than work.

Fergusnoodle:

fergusnoodle wrote:

More than four times as many men as women die by suicide; but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression."

I had a look at their sister site http://menanddepression.nimh.nih.gov and found this:

"In the United States, researchers estimate that in any given one year period, depressive illnesses affect 12 percent of women (more than 12 million women) and nearly 7 percent of men (more than six million men). But important questions remain to be answered about the causes underlying this gender difference. We still do not know if depression is truly less common among men, or if men are just less likely than women to recognize, acknowledge, and seek help for depression."

So, yes, fergus, reported suicide attempts and rates of depression are higher among women because they are more likely to REPORT them. A common aspect with men is that we do not talk about our depression, so it's pretty obvious why those rates are higher with women.

Likewise, in the FAQ you quoted, there's a question after that says:

Who is at highest risk for suicide in the U.S.?

There is a common perception that suicide rates are highest among the young. However, it is the elderly, particularly older white males that have the highest rates. And among white males 65 and older, risk goes up with age. White men 85 and older have a suicide rate that is six times that of the overall national rate. Some older persons are less likely to survive attempts because they are less likely to recuperate. Over 70 percent of older suicide victims have been to their primary care physician within the month of their death, many did not tell their doctors they were depressed nor did the doctor detect it. This has led to research efforts to determine how to best improve physicians, abilities to detect and treat depression in older adults.

Likewise, the World Health Org says: "Men are also more than three times more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder than women." which further highlights problems with communicating during depression.

So men probably get depressed and attempt suicide as much as women do. The problem is they hide the signs and not talk about it. Which could also account for the high suicide rates.

Quote:

If women’s minds want them to have babies so very much how come the birth rate has fallen so much since birth control has become (mostly) easily available?

Could be a lot of reasons, such as a rise in infertility rates or a decline in teen pregnancy, both of which have been linked with birth control.

Also, there's been an increase in adoption rates over the last few decades, which could also provide a reason for declines in birth rates.

I notice you only questioned what I said in regards to "women's mind" and not "women's bodies". Nice. Very selective.

Quote:

The patriarchy we live in also hurts men. Who ever said that Feminism didn’t include men? Did you say that? Well under your reasoning you should not have anything to do with feminism.

No duh patriarchy hurts men, that's the point of the last few pages. "Who said feminism didn't include men?" It depends on who you read. A lot of feminist authors have advocated separatism between men and women. Likewise, a lot of writers have stressed that by definition, feminism can't include men. I also think it'd be insulting for any man to say "this is feminism" or "this is how feminism should be" in the same way I be a little insulted for women to say "this is masculinism" or "this is how masculinism should be". That's why I question webber when he said he has an "ultimate goal for feminism".

To be fair to you and webber, there are major feminist writers who advocate that gender roles and identities are social constructs and should be abolished. I disagree to a certain point, because a lot of this theory discounts biological evidence that could account of how we've adapted to our gender roles. But I do see how society can influence such roles to a degree.

Quote:

The thing I base this on is admittedly just how I have felt growing up and the people I know but since your arguments seem to consist of hey my girlfriend said this about women so it has more weight than whatever Webber said.

yep i am always right suckers

I'm not saying what webber said doesn't have weight. I think it does, and I did say that. Yes, I can see how society does influence gender roles. But what I am saying is, "Hey webber, what about this over here that seems the reverse of what you've said?"

Quote:

Never once in my life had I thought about having babies. Babies repulse me, actually the idea of having one and breast feeding it makes me feel physically ill. Luckily since I have been an adult I have had scores of people tell me that I am extremely unnatural and also a freak. That one day magically I will want to have babies stay at home and be a housewife. In fact I will want to have more babies than the other women who want babies because I need to be punished for the ‘unnatural’ way I used to think. One way I have learnt to deal with this is tell the (mostly) men that are telling me this that I am pretty sure that one day they will want to have a sex change and become women. Because this is what men do right? The usual response is hey don’t talk about my genitals! That’s rude!

you don't like guys teasing you about childbirth therefore they want sex changes

(P.S. Had a think about this later -- were you trying to say because you didn't want babies that they thought you wanted to become more like a man, and so you reversed it say because they want babies that they should have a sex change? If so, yeah, they're pretty fucking stupid.)

Actually, what you say reminds me of a friend of mine. She was my first adult girlfriend from about seven or eight years ago. She's got a new partner now. She's a big feminist and hated kids. Still does to a degree. But recently, she and her boyfriend joined a tutoring problem and are working with a Sudanese family. Working with them and their kids, she said SMSed me that she was "coming around to the idea of reproducing... or adopting sudanese orphans." Damn you, Sudanese society, for brainwashing my very feminist friend to start wanting children! Damn you to hell!!!

Quote:

I still think there needs to be some sort of structure to the system, otherwise you've got complete anarchy. I think this kind of structure requires a matriarchal influence, and for a lot of reasons. I've read of biological advantages women have over men, especially factors that relate to better leadership, decision-making and communication. Plus, I've seen this kind of thing in action. I've found matriarchal households to be more peaceful, benefitial and loving compared to patriarchal.

That's not to say guys can slack off while the girls run everything -- I believe both genders need to do the best of their ability for a functioning society. And guys should have the same rights to contribute their ideas and gain the same benefits -- I believe in equality of rights for both genders. But I do believe women are better suited to leadership roles and I think more women in leadership roles would influence society positively.

Now for webber...

Quote:

Don't worry, I'm not saying "all". But I do think there is a majority.

And keep in mind, I'm not saying men "hate the responsibilities of child-rearing". In fact, I don't think I ever said that. But I do think there's a greater focus on work ethic with men. And this is an areas where I agree with you that society does influence gender roles. I also think such social pressures have a negative impact upon men and as a example look at Japan where many relate such pressures to a condition known as hikikomori.

I should also stress neither I nor my girlfriend assumed/said your girlfriend wants/should have kids. I'm only putting forth a theory from someone who has focused the last ten years of her life on her law career, has remained single and independent for the last three until some dork asked her out for coffee.

(in case you can't tell, that dork was me)

webber wrote:

Don't worry, I understand what you were saying. While I agree in some respects, I still think there are biological factors that contribute.

Quote:

But that's more so my point -- for men to focus less upon work and more upon child development/family/etc.

You seem to have this strange idea I'm only saying "Both men and women should stay at home and make babies". No, I'm saying that men do need to get away from the workplace more and have some involvement in their kids lives. Or perhaps a better phrase to use would be "men's personal relationships". If a couple doesn't want kids, fine, but I still see a lot of couples breakdown because work issues have crept into their personal lives. (As a side note: I have a theory that's why my Dad's last two marriages broke down. Go figure.)

Also, I can't speak so much for women so I should make this clear: I don't and can't define what they should do or who they should be in society. I think women should define that. I think if they want to work, work. They want to have kids, have kids. Join a circus, okay do that. I can only envision how I think men should behave in an ideal world and I only advocate more leadership roles for women over men because a lot of empirical research I've read shows women are more suited to leadership roles.

Quote:

True. But an alternate theory for your "black people are criminals" analogy is that the police could target black people more often. Likewise, you could say the alternate theory for the "black people are stupid" is the tests are culturally specific. So, to keep with the analogy, what's the alternative theory with my "deadbeat dad" test?

Also, I don't think society perceives divorced father as "feminine/gay/an "other"" for wanting custody of his kids. In fact, it's respected. So I'm having a little trouble understanding how your point fits into the model you proposed. Could you elaborate?

Quote:

But this point has more to do with gender equality than actual gender roles. Gender roles can still be different, yet both genders can still be afforded the same rights and benefits.

Quote:

2. It assumes that ALL women want to have babies, and that if you are having a career it is because you are either pretending to be a man (something PREPOSTEROUS because you do not have a penis how could you possibly join the business elite?) or because you are GIVING UP a baby. This hurts women who do not want children by making them seem less womenly, but it also hurts men because it makes child-rearing something men should not want to do.

This is actually getting away from my original point. I mention above there should be a greater shift towards family/child development/personal lives for men. Like I said, you seemed to have jumped on this idea I think all women want babies (perhaps a misinterpretation?) and should become stay-at-home mums.

Not at all. What I propose is perhaps a matriarchy would have a positive change on society. Provide women with more leadership roles. I have often heard people say if there were more female world leaders, there'd be fewer wars. And that's not to say men should have no say in what should happen in their world, but I do think men need to take a step backwards and allow more women to take greater control.

Quote:

But with those caveats in mind, you are right. Some women want to have a child before they are 30 and they totally should be able to. And I think it is reasonable in a civilised society that if they then want to go back in the workforce or go to uni or just stay at home and cook for daddy they should be given as many opportunities as possible to do that too.

But more so, my point was the medical issues and problems with fertility associated with over 30 year olds. I think this weighs heavily in this equation.

Quote:

Feminism includes EVERYONE.

Like I mentioned above, there's a lot of feminist authors who'd disagree.

I should make this clear though: I have no problem with feminism. In fact, I think it's a good thing. It's brought about many great changes in society and afforded great equality to women. I've read about it, am interested in it, and support it, but it's never something I could have a say in. For me (or you) to define how I think feminism should be is precisely what you're speaking out against: the patriarchy defining what it means to be a woman, thus oppressing women.

Quote:

I mean, all that stuff that you are interested in about men being depressed because they are losing their traditional roles in life and things, that is all come about because they have narrow gender roles. These people are oppressed by the patriarchy as much as women are.

And like I said, I agree with you on certain points, but I think you've missed a big piece of the pie here.

Quote:

And if these people argue for the abolition of gender roles they are as much feminists as any women.

I can see what you're getting at here, but I think what you're describing ignores a great deal of feminist theory. I'd say more you agree with feminism, which is great, but you still haven't convinced me you're a feminist.

Quote:

I'm not sure if you're really saying this, but just in case you are, FEMINISM IS NOT TRYING TO PUT INTO PLACE A MATRIARCHAL SYSTEM.

YEAH I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME AND I AGREE AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT SO CONDESCENDING WITH THE ALL CAPS I'M NOT A THREE YEAR OLD THIS ALL CAPS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY COCA COLA

DRINK COKE

I'll restate my view: "the patriarchal system isn't working... I'M suggesting a matriarchal system... I have this opinion independent from how I feel about feminism..."

Feminism has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting. I don't see this as much an issue of complete equality of both genders. I'll try to phrase this using your perspective: I see this discussion as more our society dictating roles created through the patriarchy, but I think it'd be better if a matriarchy had a say about these roles. I completely understand what you're saying about the eradication of gender roles, but I see more benefits with a matriarchy. Just a personal preference, mind you.

Quote:

P.S. I am wondering, if you agree with the idea of the existence of a patriarchy and see value in the idea of it changing to a matriarchy, what difference would this make if gender were not a malleable construct? Women would still be at home looking after the babies and stripping and kissing other ladies to empower themselves and men would still be out huntin and watching sport and masturbating over porn because that is what men and women do right? Biological imperatives and all that.

Oh, now you're bringing up biological imperatives? About fucking time!

If what you suggest is true, then I doubt eradicating gender roles would have any effect either. Biological imperatives and all that.

What I'm suggesting is merely affording greater leadership roles to women: in home, the workplace and politically. This doesn't mean aspects of our gender has to change. But I just think women are biologically better decision-makers and better communicators than men. And I feel if you want the world to perform to it's optimum, you have to put your best people in charge. I don't see that happening now. That's why I disagree with the last thing you say:

Quote:

If you accept that gender is generally about power and that we have invented these power roles ourselves (as most feminists I have read seem to), it would be ludicrous to then advocate a similar power structure. This is what I am saying: that a matriarchal system would not be more beneficial for us than a patriarchal system.

The problem with this is it assumes there'd be a similar power structure. What's to say if a matriarchy was in place it would have the same power structure as a patriarchy? The current power structure we have was created by patriarchy. Who knows what kind of power structure would be created under a matriarchy? It could be something completely different...

Quote:

Another thing I am wondering is whether DG (or other people in this thread) see merit in the 'race is a societal construct' discourse of the modern civil rights movement? Because as far as I see they are almost exactly the same arguments, but the race-based one seems to come up against less opposition. Does this mean that sexism is more entrenched in society than racism?

Yeap, I can agree with the "race is a societal construct" with a "bu-u-u-ut...". More on that in a sec.

Although they seem like the same arguments, there's a whole new set of factors that influence race identity and race roles. That would be a cool topic for another debate but in addition to this discussion it's so far hurting my brain.

But let's add to the pot: The "adolescence is a societal construct" discourse. There's many societal factors that influence the transition to adulthood. If you're really in favour of abolishing societal constructed roles, let's go nuts and say there's no difference between adolescents and adults. Those poor kids are tired of being turned away at the bar for far too long!

But there are also a lot of biological factors that influence this change from childhood to adulthood, and a lot of these factors really do matter. So much so, they define this change and how children and adults act and think. In many ways I can see a similar argument with gender differences in that there are significant biological distinctions between both genders. And sure, these distinctions should have no bearing upon specific gender ability nor how we should treat both genders. Having said that, these biological differences I think have had an effect on how we've shaped our world and the societal-constructed gender roles. Consider male testosterone and it's relation to aggressiveness in men. Or how the corpus callosum appears different in both genders (a hotly contested issue, but still relevant to this discussion) and the effect it has upon how both genders think.

So I think a lot of our gendered biology has an effect of how we think and act. I don't think it's completely society's influence. It's similar, though not exactly, like adolescence.

In regards to race (here's that "bu-u-u-ut...") I haven't done enough research on this topic, but I found no evidence to suggest, say, black skin biologically makes someone more likely to do something. From what I can tell, most evidence on race says it's a mostly a societal construct and the biological differences are pretty superficial. But like I said, I haven't done enough research to say anything conclusive.

Maybe that could fit the thesis you proposed.

Goddamn, that took a few hours! "I'll try and make this as short as possible" -- yeah right!
_________________

Jon wrote:

What's credibility if you don't spend it on something?

Display posts from previous:

	Progressive Boink Forum Index » Wrestling Is Not A Sport And Neither Is NASCAR - The Sports & Wrestling Forum	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


	Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group