• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

80 Years of Subtle Sexism

I think that goes into a whole Different arena that I, a heterosexual female, can't hope to understand.

The goal is not so much to understand, but to accept.

Heck I never managed to really understand the whole trans* thing with those that can't possibly pass as their desired gender and I'm keeping one eye open for the day when Muscato admits to this being a "thought experiment".

Stephonknee ? ...well I'm thinking of a clock, a clock native to the Black Forest region of Germany. Other than that, I got nuthin'
 
The goal is not so much to understand, but to accept.

Heck I never managed to really understand the whole trans* thing with those that can't possibly pass as their desired gender and I'm keeping one eye open for the day when Muscato admits to this being a "thought experiment".

Stephonknee ? ...well I'm thinking of a clock, a clock native to the Black Forest region of Germany. Other than that, I got nuthin'

I'm not sure if I'm up to accepting yet, maybe indifference. You do you.
 
It IS a conspiracy theory based on bigoted anti-male revisionist history. "Men" haven't ruled for centuries. SOME men and SOME women (usually aristocrats and monarchs) have ruled for centuries. For most of history, most men were just as powerless as most women regarding how they were ruled.
Your disingenuous usage of the words 'some' and 'most' is noted.

What's next:- arguing that only 'some' Jews were gassed in the Holocaust, and that 'most' Nazis were just following orders?

Oppression of women throughout most of history is well documented, even by the men who did it. Someone is attempting to create a revisionist history - and isn't me.
 
Your disingenuous usage of the words 'some' and 'most' is noted.

What's next:- arguing that only 'some' Jews were gassed in the Holocaust, and that 'most' Nazis were just following orders?

Oppression of women throughout most of history is well documented, even by the men who did it. Someone is attempting to create a revisionist history - and isn't me.

No, I have to go with Roger here. Absolutely women have historically been oppressed. It wasn't some women, it was virtually all women.

For instance, Queen Elizabeth I said, on the eve of the Armada battle, "I may have the weak body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too." She couldn't be a woman and rule England (a fact of primogeniture that was only changed with the birth of Princess Charlotte) so she styled herself as a King in a female body.She...the most powerful individual in England...spent most of her reign fighting men who wanted her safely married and quiet. In a culture where women (even a Princess of the Blood) were only allowed to own property if they were widowed (and even then men could easily steal it from them, leading to centuries of convoluted land laws in Britain) Elizabeth oppressed other women just as often as she was oppressed.

That's one example of a woman in power from the aristocracy...allegedly of the powerful some men and some women. There's literally endless more examples I could give, from any century, any country, and any social strata.

Our basic laws and traditions are rooted in misogyny. Women take their husband's name upon marriage. Even today it is uncommon not to do so. But why? Why is his family name more important or worthwhile than mine? Why does his name always come first on contracts even though I have a degree and he doesn't? I could keep going.
 
Last edited:
No, I have to go with Roger here. Absolutely women have historically been oppressed. It wasn't some women, it was virtually all women.

For instance, Queen Elizabeth I said, on the eve of the Armada battle, "I may have the weak body of a woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too." She couldn't be a woman and rule England (a fact of primogeniture that was only changed with the birth of Princess Charlotte) so she styled herself as a King in a female body.She...the most powerful individual in England...spent most of her reign fighting men who wanted her safely married and quiet. In a culture where women (even a Princess of the Blood) were only allowed to own property if they were widowed (and even then men could easily steal it from them, leading to centuries of convoluted land laws in Britain) Elizabeth oppressed other women just as often as she was oppressed.

That's one example of a woman in power from the aristocracy...allegedly of the powerful some men and some women. There's literally endless more examples I could give, from any century, any country, and any social strata.

Our basic laws and traditions are rooted in misogyny. Women take their husband's name upon marriage. Even today it is uncommon not to do so. But why? Why is his family name more important or worthwhile than mine? Why does his name always come first on contracts even though I have a degree and he doesn't? I could keep going.
I've never signed a contract apart from marriage that was listed by sex.

The key word in your post is historically
 
Historically includes any moment before this one right now so I'm not sure what you're aiming at.
Fair call. Apologies.

Just seems that feminists have to keep referring to about 100 years ago.

70 years ago women were the backbone of army building machinery. Even the queen is a mechanic
 
Fair call. Apologies.

Just seems that feminists have to keep referring to about 100 years ago.

70 years ago women were the backbone of army building machinery. Even the queen is a mechanic

The Western world seems to have shaped up nicely. Ill admit though, I was born in 1977 so I haven't much basis of comparison, personally.

Women live in the rest of the world too, and they suffer.
 
Hypermasculinity skews gay. It works because gay advertising is where the male gaze is focused on male objects, the results are a bit different than what you'd get from the female gaze on male objects. It's also less problematic when both the objectified and objectifier are the same sex, at least as far as accusations of sexism go.

Unfortunately it seems that when any question at all ever involves both sexes the immediate defensiveness prevents reasonable discussion. Frankly, most of the posters in this thread are irrational and grinding axes. I put it down to the inherent inferiority of heterosexuality. That stuff just messes with your head.

Don't be condescending, hon.
 
I believe you are correct. In my (anecdotal) experience of being a gay man hanging out with a lot of gay men, we treat each other exactly how straight men would treat women if the women would permit it. Men are pigs, the gay ones have the option of embracing that because what we lose from the other guy being a pig we make up for with our own piggery. It's a perfect circle, so as long as you like that sort of thing you'll be as happy as, well, a pig in mud.

Men are pigs. I'm glad we got that settled.
 
Hypermasculinity skews gay. It works because gay advertising is where the male gaze is focused on male objects, the results are a bit different than what you'd get from the female gaze on male objects. It's also less problematic when both the objectified and objectifier are the same sex, at least as far as accusations of sexism go.

Unfortunately it seems that when any question at all ever involves both sexes the immediate defensiveness prevents reasonable discussion. Frankly, most of the posters in this thread are irrational and grinding axes. I put it down to the inherent inferiority of heterosexuality. That stuff just messes with your head.
It is a dude with his undies on. How do you tell which is aimed at gays and which women?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom