I'll try to make this succinct...
(1) Art contributes to society.
(2) Not everyone has the capacity to contribute to science or your other "masculine" fields.
(3) Lead by example, not prescription. Until you have contributed to society in a substantial, positive and meaningful way, you have no room to pontificate about the subject. So where's your PhD?
(4) None of the points you're trying to make have anything to do with why you think women can't do "male" careers. This is a non-sequitur.
Originally Posted by complich8
1)Yes it does. But only if you give me an explanation on how. It's only fair since you guys put me through this bull shit.(and I didn't mention art, did I, nor did I say it doesn't contribute)
2)I don't set defined rules as to what I think people can and can't contribute. Nor did I say they have to fit the rules of being "masculine"
3)Contribute in my own way huh? So no matter how many people in my community I hire? Only a PhD will suffice?
4) well thats fantastic because I never said anything about woman not being able to. I said the exact opposite. And you were the ones saying I thought girls can't do anything men can't. You turned my words around.
Dude....just stop.....
You're just going to get more neg reps
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
Note: this is getting way off-topic for the bitching thread, so I'm going to split it off into its own thing.
Well, succinct didn't work out too well, let's try long this time
I'll start here:
You're right, that wasn't really a fair point. It's important for everyone to question the status-quo, it's not something just for the elites (whom the status quo most often favors, hence them being elite... by definition).
However, calling being a chef or an actor a socially insignificant job while calling a small business owner socially significant isn't exactly fair either. Especially given that the one making that distinction has a conflict of interest, namely that he's artificially grouping himself in the "good" category without really defining a valid reason for that distinction.
My point isn't that PhD's give you a pass to prescribe what's right for the world, but rather that nothing at all (PhD or otherwise) gives you the right to claim that your belief is superior to another without valid justification -- something which I didn't see any of.
Acting and music-making are forms (i.e.: a subset of the concept) of art. Humans need downtime, entertainment, relaxation. Culture is a form of social value, and art (as acting, as painting, as music, as literature) is the currency of culture.
You excoriate actors as a singular example of things that men shouldn't do. But you don't single out anything about acting itself, rather you make comments which generalize to all art. Thus, you are declaring art socially worthless and relegate it to "hobby-only" status.
And yet here you're not standing behind that claim, because you're clearly conceding that art isn't worthless. So then, is it only worthless if a man does it?
I feel like this is a contradictory attitude to hold. If art is only valid as a hobby, then it follows that art is not contributory to society. But you assert that art is contributory to society. A implies B. Not B. Therefore Not A thanks modus tollens!. Or would you assert that acting and music aren't art? If that's the case, then we could easily fork this discussion to a question of aesthetics (ie: "What is art?")... but that's totally beside the point.
Is this just a strong instance of objectification? I suppose watching straight porn instead of all-lesbian porn also makes you gay because there's dicks involved that aren't yours.
I don't know what sort of movies you like, but I don't think a woman could pull off Bruce Willis's Die Hard role in any sort of believable way. And Die Hard is a very, very male-oriented movie. Not to mention that women don't play convincing world war 2 soldiers, because they weren't.
There's only so many movies you can weave around an all-female cast, considering you basically have to exclude romance, children, and the vast majority of history and literature. What's left? Lifetime TV. Go watch some now, and enlighten yourself as to the utter banality of watching "strengthening the mother-daughter bond" for the seventeenth time.
Further, what's wrong with being gay? You do realize that like, somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the population is gay (depending on where you get your statistics), and that they don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter (unless you don't buy into things like ... err ... science).
No, but you are saying that there is a singular objective standard to which men (and only men) must aspire to in order to be acceptable as men, which includes the type of career they go into as well as apparently what they like viewing and consuming in their downtime.
I agree that everyone should aspire to be the most positive person they can be. But that's not just men, and it's not the same for all men. Some men are better exemplars of positive members of society doing things that are traditionally relegated to women. Some women are better members of society doing jobs that are traditionally men's.
So you're saying you contribute if you're hiring people who don't fit your criteria for contribution? A PhD is a certification that you've contributed positively to the field of science. Not the only way to contribute, but certainly one of the hardest to discard.
Now, consider for a moment whether the people you're employing are also meeting the standard you want to hold them to? Do they contribute to the good of society? Or is their contribution to the good of society their mere existence and the support of their families? Realizing that most employees in most careers are essentially replaceable parts, you have to ask yourself if creating employment is in and of itself an inherent good?
If employment itself -- having a job, participating in the economy, and being a functioning member of society -- is an inherent good, then why shouldn't males be able to do so in any way that works for them? Why can't I, as a man, be a musician, if that's what I excel at? Why can't I be a chef? What if, like Tom Cruise, I make a better actor than anything else? If I'm an incredible ballet dancer, why can't I dance ballet? Or are you saying I can, but just not as a profession?
And if employment itself isn't an inherent good, then how can you claim that your employing people is a contribution to society?
Further, why can't I be a stay-at-home dad if my wife has a better-paying career that can support both of us? In particular given my own developmental psychology background? Is raising a cohesive and functional family and producing children who will be healthy, productive members of society not of higher value than pursuing some dated concept of masculine propriety via rigidly-defined gender roles?
I'm not saying "a man should be able to lie around the house all day if his wife's loaded", mind you. Rather, I'm saying that families (which are permanent) are more important than careers (which are growing ever more transient), and that for the first several years of a child's life it's more important that they have a parent around nurturing their development than parents in a higher tax bracket. A man living solely off of a woman's income without being a significant contributor to home and family is precisely as despicable as a woman doing the same, in my opinion.
(but even then, there's a distinction to draw between a homemaker and a leech, and I couldn't presume to pass so harsh a judgment on a person without strong evidence that they were in fact being a gold-digging parasite and not contributing to their spouse's interests and wellbeing or at least pursuing their own personal improvement)
But wait ...
Am I missing something here? Whatever you say after this point doesn't change the fact that you want to pigeonhole men into "male" careers and women into "non-male" careers. You try to claim "it's ok" for women to work but at the same time you assert that it's "Just wrong". This is a contradiction. It's either acceptable or it's not. So which is it?
Or are you perhaps saying that what there is a space within the realm of socially acceptable that's not morally acceptable? But if social acceptability and moral acceptability are divergent sets, then what is it that describes these sets? And if you have divergent moral codes, then what can you do about it?
But the part I skipped over with ellipses (ie: the contradiction) says that you believe that social rights take precedence over non-universal morality. If this is the case, then why isn't the social right to pursue happiness via whatever occupation you want included in this priority?
Comp just wasted like 10 minutes typing away a legit, lengthy post to someone who won't read past the first few sentences.
Wow comp...WAY TOOOOOO LONG!
LEGENDARY!
Complich has nothing but time. It was a good read for the rest of us anyway.
Can I safely guess than conquistadan is one of my yellow brothers?
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
No, just assertn's retard friend.
Die please and take your sexist ideals with you.
no hatred, just pity. I pity ignorant people who see things in such clear cut ways. Conquista, may i ask how much of an education you have? or if you were abused as a child? and also im curious why you didn't throw race into the mix and say that black people should not sell cars or some rediculous thing to add to your completely inane post.
Silly bbcaucom, thats mage's job.
Also don't forget to watch "Men are Evil 7: This guy who I thought I could trust kinda raped me last night".
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
I don't get why you all are racking down on Dan. What's wrong with claiming that men are better at some things? That's not sexist. It's more sexist to deny that the sexes are different.
The sexes are different, but that doesn't justify some of the convictions floating around this thread as to if men/women should be alotted certain roles and restrictions in society. The idea that an indivudal will always fall 'within the average limits of the gender' is easily disproved, and you'd then be depriving society of that useful potential by saying 'Oh, but we don't get that utility from that gender! Go be a cook/laborer instead'
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
I think the army should be man only. Rest=unisex.
I was kinda expecting TS to say something more sexist than that.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
I agree with your other three points but this one isn't fair. If he is a small business owner then he is probably providing some kind of service to whatever little area of society he deals with and that shouldn't be ignored. And while I sense plenty of sarcasm in your last comment I still have to disagree with the idea that "Only the elite may question the status quo". Highly educated people tend to be capable of making good long-term decisions, but that doesn't mean not so well educated people are incapable of analyzing a situation and postulating a viable solution.
That being said conquistaDan the way you phrased your original post seems to say that the jobs that "ONLY women should do" are somehow inferior or unimportant. You also clearly state you don't think women should not be involved in what you identify as 'real work' which seems to imply you don't think they are suited for it. [Flame On]You also aren't very good at framing an argument anyway so you shouldn't be surprised you were misunderstood[FlameOff]
As to your clarified main point, I would agree that people might as well pull their own weight and give back to society in some way that is meaningful (I'm not going to touch the definition of meaningful because I don't have a Ph.D or a small buisness) but I wouldn't give women a pass to just be carried and supported by men either. And instead of just trying to undermine people's responses why don't you also defend your own points, that's one of the big differences between a discussion and a flame session.
Last edited by Yukimura; Mon, 07-16-2007 at 11:19 PM.
Posting Permissions
