NotMyMorals
Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"
How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."
Do you have any data for that, or even a rigorous definition of an "egalitarian marriage?"
Labeling your ideology with glittering generalities like the "pursuit of equality" doesn't change the substance. "Equality" was traditionally understood to be "equality under the law" not some vague "social equality" where all social distinctions must be erased.
"Feminism" is clearly not about men and women being equal under the law.
Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
Our understanding of your ideology is precisely the reason we reject it.
Leftist ideology clearly has its roots in secularized Judeo-Christianity. We all have the "original sin" of racism/sexism/etc. we must be redeemed of, and the world is "torn" and must be tikkun-olamed to be "fixed" by a priest class of activists.
No thanks.
People who embrace our traditions get called "troglodytes" "fascists" "nazis" "sexists" and the like by cultural Marxists, moralistic activists, and other fanatics.
>Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize. You may be surprised to learn how little many people care about your 20th century social ideologies.
Yes, and why should we want to change to be like you?
"Patriarchy?" Cultural Marxism went out in the 1970s. "Troglodyte?" As a metaphor for a man who works and takes care of his wife and children?
"Ignorant?" No one is "ignorant" of cultural Marxist screeds about "sexism" and "patriarchy." Plenty of people are quite knowledgeable on these issues, but simply reject your kind's often-strange morality and attempts to remake society to conform to bizarre sociological notions from the last century.
Really, burning bras is so last century. Get with the times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Perhaps you are simply ignorant of the origin of your "privilege" rhetoric.
"Privilege?" Check your cultural Marxism.
Who associates these characteristics with "high school jocks" and who assumes these are negative characteristics?
Arrogance (i.e., a superior male) misogyny (i.e., a man who the woman I lust after has sex with) bullying (i.e., a man who is socially superior than me) and unwarranted aggression (i.e., a male who out-competes me).
Sound like "brogrammer" means "I really envy this superior man."
"A popular, cool, or otherwise normal person who has become intrigued by the fun of programming. Usually unliked by the nerdy programmers for getting all of the friends and the girls, while creating cool and useful applications."
Was that meant to be an insult?
One has to wonder if "male feminists" and "nice guys" share the same delusion that "white knighting" females will increase their sexual success, and advocating "more women in tech" is an excuse to have potential mates in closer proximity, and has nothing to do with any moral crusade or actual benefit for the tech industry itself?
One wonders if "male feminists" are simply trying to compensate for their personal deficiencies?
My subjective impression of you and your "anti-sexism" is that you are an ideological fanatic. Fortunately, it's not likely that you and your kind will ever "overcome sexism in society" and it's likely that public restrooms will remain segregated by gender.
Your understanding of the differences between the sexes seems based more on ideological, abstract categories than practical, biologically based considerations, which is often the case with ideological and religious fanaticism.
In my opinion, your "anti-sexism" is just rehashed, 20th century cultural Marxism that is fortunately becoming less popular. I hope we can all progress beyond such failed, politically and religiously motivated trends.
I don't see anyone suggesting such a thing, but instead, that the majority of each gender may have certain behavior and learning styles in common.
And even if this happens to be true, then why stop at gender-segregation?
Why go any further? Just because one type of segregation may work, doesn't mean that all types of segregation would work.
The horror - they even have segregated bathrooms!
I think for the sake of civilization, we should not try to aim for a 50/50 ratio. Your utopia is another person's dystopia. Not all of us share your morality.
Yes they most certainly do.
Yes, they may be technically competent, but they are socially incompetent, because they never progressed beyond that juvenile behavior.
Ok, now you have admitted that technically competent men may in fact exhibit those behaviors, so now you're saying they are "socially incompetent." You are wrong in both cases, highly competent men who show off their skills, brag, and dominate other men tend to be very socially competent. In fact, this sort of display is very much a demonstration of social competence.
Obviously, juveniles do this is a different way than adults, but the pattern of behavior is the same. It is also often the case that men who are being shown up will try to "tear down" the dominant male by labelling his behavior "juvenile" or trying to change the nature of the competition to something he's better at.
One might paraphrase: "sure, he's highly competent, adept at showing his skills, and is clearly superior to me at this particular activity. But he's such a show-off!"
Did you actually read that comment as comparing the "desire to get more women into tech" with castration?
You really didn't understand that the castration reference was to a "simple technical fix" for typical male behavior, and that the reference is what is often called "hyperbole?"
You really misunderstood not only what was being compared to castration, but also the tone in which the reference was made?
Perhaps the problem isn't women, and it isn't men, but instead the urge to force them together and then demand they suppress their natural gender differences?
Based on experience I would guess having gender segregated groups of technical workers could be quite productive. But anyone trying would immediately be hit by lawsuits from the discrimination lawyers.
Too much drama. Too much shit to cope with, that involves dicks and egos.
Absolutely, and from the other side, forcing a man into a mostly female group is going to drive him crazy with what he perceives to be the petty female group dynamics.
The comic could have just as easily said "one girl is good at math therefore exactly as many girls as boys are good at math."
The author clearly stated he felt challenged by the display of dominance by another male, and wrote this blog to heal his wounded ego and display his superior abilities at leading women.
So, no, it probably wouldn't have been effective without the male villain. The competing male was a "jerk" and the damsel in distress just needed to be protected from the "jerk" by the knight in shining armour.
All-female classes taught by a single male teacher have proven to be quite effective.
Yes, Dave was showing off to an audience of women.
she asked me a question she giggled and told me she had no idea what the project was about, or what to do.
Yes, the woman was acting like a bimbo to elicit male help.
Congrats, you now have the grasp of female/male dynamics usually figured out by middle school.
I’d never really believed in single sex education
Wow, a thousand years of human culture tossed away in one generation by ideological fanatics pretending that women and men are "equal" and one guy finally figures out maybe tradition exists for a reason. Ask any woman who went to an all-girls school if she missed having to be in the same classroom as boys.
I saw that women only groups are not creating a more insular community of women, but rather offering these women a more comfortable entrance into our general community.
Amazing! How was this brilliant guy to know he could have asked his grandmother and saved himself all that trouble?
The jerk factor also reminded me of why we in the Free Software community need to be taking issues of civility seriously, and not letting the idea of “free speech” get in the way of maintaining a safe place for discussion.
You get your group to be 50/50 male/female and you are going to drive away lots of competent men because showing off their skills, bragging, and one-upping other men is one of the primary motivations to excel at your chosen field. A "safe space" for women is often a "boring space" for men.
But sure, go ahead, I'm sure this problem will be easy to solve with just the right technical fix. In fact, I can think of one technical fix the ancient Chinese used to make "safe men" for keeping their harems.
"There are no statutes capable of controlling the relations between men and women." -- Secretary
So, no, "sexism" is not the problem, the problem is "anti-sexism."
We exclude all sorts of groups, including the incompetent, all the time. There are cases when the benefits of including some group may cause a net detriment due to other factors.
>Mono-cultures are generally weak and vulnerable. Diversity is generally robust.
These glittering generalities are not backed up by any facts. "Diversity" often causes more problems than it purportedly solves, and generalizing "mono-cultures" as "weak and vulnerable" is not something that you can base on facts.
If the man is attractive, women will generally welcome the flirtation. If he is unattractive, the woman will generally perceive it as an insult to her attractiveness, since the man should know better, that she is "out of his league."
Also, can anyone explain why it is considered a "good thing" to have a gender balance in tech, or any industry? Who decided that every industry must have an equal number of men and women?
And you are obviously a "nice guy."
My t-shirt says "This is What a Feminist Looks At."
In the sense they both expect different values and attitudes towards sex from men and women.
Keep your religion-derived asexual "men and women are the same" nonsense to your church or feminist club.