Jump to content

Men are better than women.


geek-in-a-half-shell

Recommended Posts

Many people think that being beautiful is about "catching men." That's not true. Some of us just take pride in ourselves, and what's wrong with that? I'm sick of this, "Nice outfit. Who are you wearing it for?" (I don't dress sexy, I just wear nice clothes when a lot of other people wear sweat pants & stained t-shirts -- like some people are shocked to see a person wear a decent dress & shoes these days... like, wow, big deal, she's wearing a dress! Makes me wanna say, give me a break!)

I don't get this new fashion -- expensive pedicure with flip flops, perfect hair and perfect nails and perfect makeup -- with sweatpants and t-shirt -- especially sweat pants on a person who does not run... !

What irritates me is that if you're attractive, or dress up, people assume that you're having sex or have a significant other, and if you aren't having sex and aren't dating, they respond with, "But you're so pretty!", or "What a waste!"

Riiiiight. I'm sorry, I didn't realise that my body was for public consumption, and that I didn't get a say in what I do with my own body.

I like to be attractive. Not attracting, but attractive --- aesthetically appealing rather than sexually appealing. It's about pride in one's appearance, as you stated, and the desire to make a good impression on people. I don't want people thinking that I'm a lazy bum, and I want them to pay attention to me and value my words and thoughts and ideas. This dictates what I wear at times (such as job interviews), but mainly, I look good for me, not anyone else, and no one else has the right to dictate what I should or should not be wearing.

I don't get fashion, either. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about pride in one's appearance, as you stated, and the desire to make a good impression on people. I don't want people thinking that I'm a lazy bum, and I want them to pay attention to me and value my words and thoughts and ideas. This dictates what I wear at times (such as job interviews

Job interviews don't require a female to wear high heels, makeup, cleavage-revealing tops and tight (or even un-tight) skirts. The only kind of job that requires those kind of adornments would be one in which hetrosexual male customers are to be seduced in some way. For a job interview in which the job involves doing some kind of office work, the interviewee needs only look business-like and there is definately an established idea about what is business-like. Men have little or no problem with it. WOmen are always encouraged by society to incorporate the kind of appearance that they "use" when dating or trying to be attractive, into how they look when at work.

When did I say that heels, make-up, cleavage, and tight outfits are suitable interview attire? Again, you're making assumptions, and expanding on one example without, apparently, taking into account the rest of my post.

I don't think that women at any job should wear dresses or skirts. Dresses and skirts are for being attractive when dating.

Which, as your opinion, is perfectly all right. But for a lot of women, dresses and skirts are also for work, and for comfort, and for looking professional. I'm as comfortable in loose pants as I am in a loose skirt or dress, and I can look professional in all of them.

Perhaps, as you imply that it is with you, when you are with like-minded friends whom will appreciate your style of dressing without bringing any idea of "sensuality" into it, then that is when it is best that you practice your own idea of "pride" in the way you dress.

I said "sexual," not "sensual." There's a huge difference between the two. You can be sensual without being sexual, and vice-versa. But that's not the point. Would you like me to post some pictures of either outfits of mine, or outfits I consider appropriate for interviews, going out to dinner, lunch, hanging out ...? Really, I'm not sure what your goal is, here.

You must not get me wrong, at least not totally, you have to realize that in a sexual world, certain kinds of attire are just considered for the purpose of attracting someone and you cannot just pretend that just cause you personally don't think so, the rest of the world will automatically agree with you and leave you alone about it.

The condescension that I'm reading in your first sentence is suffocating. I am quite aware of what attire is specifically for attracting someone and what attire isn't, in a sexual world. You've taken one small example of mine and blown it way out of proportion, made huge, and false, assumptions about me, and you appear to be expecting me to take you seriously in all of this.

I don't go to work, or job interviews, or anywhere in public in booty-shorts or cleavage-baring tops or tight clothes. I'm mindful of my appearance, and the different situations in which a different appearance is necessary. How am I pretending something isn't the way it is? Look, if I don't want people to think that I'm a lazy bum, then I go out in clean, unwrinkled clothes, clothes that match, or are at least tastefully mismatched, and I don't wear clothes that could be construed as meaning that I want to get laid.

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said?

I heard that there are some cultures in which using your right hand to feed yourself is an insult to anyone whom is watching you. If you know this, you don't go where there is such a culture and eat using your right hand in front of someone because, in your mind, you don't think that eating using your right hand is an insult and anyone of the culture will just instantly forget what they had always been taught and not take it seriously or think you are insulting them just because it does not have that meaning to you.

It's the left hand, actually. How are my clothing choices insulting to anyone?

It can be like flaunting religion, always talking about the bible, (or the koran or the book of Buddah etc) and not expecting anyone to think that you are a fanatic. You just have to keep such things among people whom you know and whom know you. Of course it is not fair, but you have to not unwittingly fit into other's ideas just because you think that the ideas are silly.

I hadn't realised that relating my experiences with gender relations as a participant in two different cultures was flaunting religion ... So, if someone here said, "As a pagan, we hold that men and women are equal, but we do see that there are differences with how they act/are treated/etc.," would you claim that they're a fanatic, or at least flaunting religion?

Well I know that I do not have a popular opinon here.

I prefer coherent opinions, myself. :)

Here are two outfits that I would consider interview-appropriate for me and me alone:

BQcDAAAAAwoDanBnAAAABC5vdXQKFlZrdjB6YmlzM3hHdTFySGlBaXRlelEAAAACaWQKAXgAAAAEc2l6ZQ.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oaky, I've contributed to the hijacking of this thread, and for that I do apologise.

Men and women are fundamentally different, but that doesn't make one better than the other one. What one gender lacks, the other excels in. Some people prefer "traditional" heteronormative relationships and roles, and that's fine, so long as they're not forcing it on other people. Some people prefer highly untraditional roles and relationships with some, all, or no genders, and again, that's fine, so long as they're not forcing it on other people. THAT'S when issues start.

And let me restate, love for my sanity gives me no other option than to believe that this man and his site are satire, and not serious in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that? Are you saying that this is a case of stereotypical women hating stereotypical women? If that's the case, could you please point out how I'm a "stereotypical" woman?

I said it is an opposite of non-stereotypical women hating stereotypical women.

So you did. My apologies for the mix-up.

When non-stereotypical women hate stereotypical women it tends to mean that a woman whom is not into make-up, or being a baby machine, or obssessing about the right dress, catching-a-man, acting weak and vulnerable to compliment male machoness, etc, is every thing from oppressed to intellectually made-insane by the pathetic examples of other females. Actually stereotypical women hate other stereotypical women because stereotypical ones are catty, gossipy,driven by mood swings (etc), and it is a culture in which the same gender is not able to get along with it's own self because it is a culture of the same gender.

You're assuming that me saying that I get along with one group better means that I hate the other group, which is absurd. As an example, I get along with my mother better than my father, but I by no means hate my father. I get along with two of my managers at work better than my third, but I by no means hate the third.

When some female says that she gets along better with men than with other women, it can be tricky. It can mean that the woman has interests that are not about hairstyles, ot the color of nail polish but about motorcycles, carpentery, hockey (etc). Or, it can mean that she feels that she can only get attention for her femaleness from hetrosexual men even if she also talks about cars and baseball with them. When a woman says she gets along better with men than women it could mean that it has to do with being protected, humored, and sweet-talked by men because of the fact that she is a woman, rather than being bitched at by other women.

Do you realise that you're pigeon-holing men and women into two very strict stereotypes? I realise that you're talking about "stereotypical" women, but in doing so, you're also horribly stereotyping men. And sometimes, people get along with people, and gender has little to do with it.

I actually don't know if you are a stereotype. I am willing to apologize when I have wrongly accused, or seem to have wrongly accused someone. I am just saying that I have learned throughout life that I cannot always afford to assume that people are not stereotypes. I once grudgingly went to a male doctor, partially so to force myself not to automatically think that a man would instantaneously be so backward and treat a female as inferior. Well the guy treated me as if he had to make decisions for me and acted as if I had no say. I once overheard a woman say to another that she herself would not wear a dress. The first idea that came in my mind was that this female is sure not a stereotype and she does not think that she has to yeild to social construct, but then she said that it is because she does not think her legs are pretty enough to show off. After I graduated college, I could only find work for one of those "temporary labor" places and I had to be among undereducated people of black and Hispanic races, especially males. I told myself that I ought not pre-judge and think that people I have to work among here will be different from people I knew in college, well I had to listen to a lot of cursing, extremely poor grammar, tons of sexual innuendo and harassment.

Sometimes it does me no good to be politically correct and sometimes unless proven otherwise one would best assume that most people have a certain nature to them and where it comes from can be irrelevant.

And now it all makes sense. Because of your life experiences, which are all valid for you, you're assuming that my life experiences are the same, that the things that you've experienced, I've experienced, with the same motives and reactions. I was wondering why you were making assumptions instead of saying, "Oh, you feel X? Why is that?" Now it makes sense. But please, start asking people why, before making assumptions about them. We could have avoided this whole argument if you had.

How is having a group of close female friends "reinforcing gender roles within religious context"?

Of course not always, though one would find it difficult to find exceptions.

But it does happen that religion is about tradition. Women are supposed to associate with other women so as to learn from each other about being women regarding what things they will do, how they are to act, and younger females are supposed to learn from older ones how to be feminine, not act like a boy and avoid rough play or climbing trees etc. It is supposed to be about the idea that "God" wants females to be a certain way and males to be a different way. And when females believe that they are serving some ultimate purpose by being passive it is an extention of social construct to put gender role in the context of religion

Except I'm not passive. I don't expect men to take care of me, or coddle me, and I expect that I'm a lot better at climbing trees and playing rough than a lot of men I know. My religion doesn't call for women to be passive and for men to control their every thought and movement. I wouldn't have joined it if it did.

... Oh, wow. You're REALLY going to have to explain yourself on this one. Was I non-religious/non-fanatical and non-covering before I converted, and now that I have, I'm religious and fanatical, and am being made to think, by men, that now I have to cover myself? Do I get along better with my non-religious guy friends than my religious ones?

If that's the case, you're operating under some SERIOUS misconceptions about me, my life, the people in it, and my religion. But please, if you could explain yourself first, I don't want to make assumptions about what you mean.

Ok. So you are saying that you were the same person before you converted as after you converted. That you used to be as likely to wear very covering dresses, and be, let's say spiritually-driven when you were not religious as after you became religious, right? It seems the meaning is that you were not "de-influenced" from being the person you had always been by taking up a certain religion. But you said (unless I misunderstood) that you did start to accumulate more religious female friends and get along better with them at least in a certain way after you converted and you said that the religion does foster a deeper relationship with one's own gender. I think I addressed that in my prior reply that women of religious cultures are expected to associate with each other for the reason of learning to be women and so as to take up the gender roles that come with being a woman. If you are associating with like-minded females whom know about repairing trucks, engineering, science, etc, and are teaching each other about those things rather than makeup and dresses and the color of nail polish, then that is wonderful. You are shattering the very idea of traditional women's roles and not just accepting some vague blanket-statement of an idea that men are meant to do certain things and women other things and none are supposed to cross into each other's interests or roles. After all, no religion is worth debasing yourself like that for some supposed "greater reward."

I'm not saying that I didn't get along with women before I converted. I didn't say that I didn't get along with men, or that I now don't get along with them, be they religious or not, part of my religion or not.

People do change when they take on new beliefs, but for some of us, like it was with me, these changes were simply the next step in a path of change that I was already on, the next evolution of me, you could say. Yeah, I started covering more before I converted, including my hair. I accumulated more religious female friends because before converting, I didn't have the opportunity to socialise with Muslim women. And it irritates me that I can't go up to SOME, but not ALL, of my Muslim guy friends and ask if they wanna go grab a burger or something, without there having to be a big group going. There are some who don't mind hanging out without a group.

I don't associate with women in order to learn how to be a woman. I don't associate with men in order to find a husband. I associate with both genders because I have a reason to, because they're my friends, and we get along. Hell, on Wednesdays and Thursdays, I'm the only girl in a role-playing group, because I like to role-play. And we have a convert support group that's mainly made up of women, with only two guys. I think the only idea of women's traditional roles that I'm shattering is yours.

I don't find the idea of sex to be liberating. Neither do my friends, Muslim or not. And "appreciate" and "closer", with quotes, as you wrote them, implies that women only THINK that they appreciate being treated in a traditional fashion (define that, please, by the way), and that the camaraderie amongst women really isn't closer at all. Please also tell me exactly which one of my friends thinks she has to stay home and be passive, whilst her man works outside the home? Is it the chemical engineer who's currently out of town on a business trip? Is it the one who works longer and harder than her husband in order to keep our mosque running? Is it me, gong to school and working?

Great. But still I personally find it hard to trust a person's intellectual consistency when he/she, on one hand, does not think sex is liberating but whom still practices it because he/she believes it is necessary for procreation and maintaining the continuation of cultural ways.

And I find it hard to not slap the shit out of someone who doesn't trust me to know my own thoughts and feelings. Honestly. Thank God for the Internet. I don't have sex. I don't WANT to have sex. IF I get married, then yeah, I'll have sex, because making compromises is part of a healthy relationship. I don't think sex is necessary for continuing cultural ways, and it's not necessary for carrying on the family name. I fully plan to adopt as many kids as I may give birth to, if not more.

YOU are not asking ME how I view things. YOU are making ASSUMPTIONS about ME, then judging me on YOUR assumptions. It's driving me crazy, and I'm quickly finding no use for this conversation.

For religious people being married is not for any other reason than to "be fruitful" otherwise it is live a celibate life. It must be a grand contradiction and misery to hate sex or be disinterested in it so much that one would not even bother with it but to feel that one must live within the social construct ( not to mention the religious dictate) of marriage, and domesticity and parenthood to breed another generation of people whom will carry on in the same manner and this tends to mean that women will be mothers and wives and homemakers while men are fathers, and workers and conquerers and leaders in the world.

Oaky, maybe in Christianity, that's the case. Possibly in Judaism. But in Islam, the MAIN purpose of being married is to be companions of one another, to help each other be better people, to foster good, loving relationships, and to provide a stable family life for any children, thus creating a more stable society. Islam is, in fact, AGAINST being celibate when one has sexual desire. And, if I don't feel the need for sex or marriage, I don't have to do either. I don't feel that I have to get married, have sex, and have kids. If I want a romantic bond with someone, that does necessitate marriage, but any man I marry will be FULLY aware of my desires, and he and I will BOTH reach a compromise. I do not HATE sex. I am not even ANTI-sex. IF I have sex, though, it WILL be on MY terms. Not YOURS, not my hypothetical husband's, not ANYONE ELSE'S TERMS BUT MINE.

I put the word "appreciate" in quotes meaning that women can sometimes be made to think that being kept barefoot and pregnant is being "appreciated," and put to carry out a very high purpose. I guess this is not the case with you or your friends and I hope not, but if you are realistic enough, you have to admit that this is the female experience when it comes to religion.

Not my religion, certainly. Culture screws women over more than my religion does.

I'll reply to this part when you've answered the questions I posed above.

Thus my overall point is that patriarchal society can make women think that they are liberated and autonomous when they (women) are only unwittingly fitting into stereotypical niches .

Although you do have somewhat of a point, yes, by all means, let's not trust women to do their own thinking. If it's not the patriarchy twisting our minds, it's people not taking women at their word when they talk, not trusting women to know how they really feel or think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

@Larissa Fae: Why do you wear earrings under the headscarf if nobody can see them?

I really think this topic should be moved to the hot box. But anyways, I have a few things to say about the preceding dozen or so comments:

First off, the idea of dress and behaviour at the workplace, sexiness, etc:

I think that a lot of people here are making the mistake of considering male-style dress and behaviour as being the gold standard. Personally, I think that it's mistaken idealism to expect women to act and behave like men. Most women are different from most men, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think many women have many annoying habits in terms of behaviour, but so do many men.

In terms of dress: I think that while it's counterproductive for women to wear revealing or really tight clothes, it isn't bad for them to want to be attractive, even sexy. Lots of people like being a bit sexy. It's all about the kind of sexy, and sometimes less is more. I don't think it's a sign of weakness or backwardness for women to like dresses and skirts. For one thing, I know a few women who say that skirts are easier to fit well than trousers, so they wear more skirts. Also, some people just like to feel pretty. They're not trying to catch a man, they just like feeling attractive.

I also believe, very strongly, that whatever women wear, men should be expected to be in control of themselves.

I would also point out that just like with non-Muslim folks, not all Muslim women are alike. I should think that an axiom, but to many people, it seems not to be.

Larissa Fae says that she has many close female friends, and has some male friends as well. It's not unusual in the least for people to make close friends primarily with people of the same gender, especially of the same birth sex. People are generally friends with people who have similar interests and social frameworks, and that will generally draw women closer together, and men closer together. There is nothing religious about it, it's what humans tend to do. Of course, there are many exceptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Larissa Fae: Why do you wear earrings under the headscarf if nobody can see them?

:D Good question. Mainly because I know that I'm wearing them, and I don't always have to cover myself. If I go to a family member's house, for example, or to a an all-women gathering. Also, I'm kind of addicted to huge dangly earrings, so I wear those outside of my scarf, like the following (none of them me):

3478504040_b88102a847_o.jpg0.jpgearing.jpg

And last but not least, the beautiful Sabrina, of SliceOfLemon.com, one of my personal heroines. :wub:

IMG_6053.jpg

I really think this topic should be moved to the hot box. But anyways, I have a few things to say about the preceding dozen or so comments:

I think people should start taking me at my word, rather than applying their own assumptions, experiences, and biases to me. :blink:

I think that a lot of people here are making the mistake of considering male-style dress and behaviour as being the gold standard. Personally, I think that it's mistaken idealism to expect women to act and behave like men. Most women are different from most men, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think many women have many annoying habits in terms of behaviour, but so do many men.

Thank you. I know you're not trying to defend me or my points or anything, but you've very clearly and simply said what I've been trying to say. :lol:

In terms of dress: I think that while it's counterproductive for women to wear revealing or really tight clothes, it isn't bad for them to want to be attractive, even sexy. Lots of people like being a bit sexy. It's all about the kind of sexy, and sometimes less is more. I don't think it's a sign of weakness or backwardness for women to like dresses and skirts. For one thing, I know a few women who say that skirts are easier to fit well than trousers, so they wear more skirts. Also, some people just like to feel pretty. They're not trying to catch a man, they just like feeling attractive.

Exactly. I'm dressing up for me, not for anyone else. Unless I'm dressing up for someone else, in which case I'm not only dressing up for me. But the vast majority of what I put on is put on with me coming first, then other people coming in last. Unless, as I stated in an example, it's a job interview. Then I have to take a look at what appropriate attire is, first, and THEN work out how to fit that to me. I want both those outfits I posted.

Feeling sexy doesn't always have anything to do with attracting a mate. I wear sexy underwear all the time. Who sees them? I don't have a husband or a lover, no one to be turned on by them. I'm not even turned on by them, but damn, do I like the way I look in them, do I feel different knowing that I'm wearing them. I like feeling sexy, feeling like if anyone got a hint as to what I was wearing under my clothes, it'd blow their minds. It's not a desire to turn anyone on, because I really have no use for sex, but it's the possibility of being that alluring. Maybe I'm just a great big tease. But then, no one knows that but me. :P

There's also a huge difference between attractive and attracting. I would classify "attractive" as looking good, being well-groomed, stylish (or not, but looking good pulling it off). "Attracting" I would classify as a deliberate attempt to entice people.

Here are two examples, one of "attractive" and one of "attracting", because I suck at explaining (that or I'm addicted to Polyvore):

BQcDAAAAAwoDanBnAAAABC5vdXQKFmdPX0JDVDJ2M3hHWHRGdjdsZHEzdHcAAAACaWQKAXgAAAAEc2l6ZQ.jpg

To me, the higher the heel, the more it says "Look at me! Look at me!" I've been guilty of wearing ridiculously high heels, and it wasn't for comfort. I'm not saying that every woman who goes out in the second outfit is on the prowl for a man or attention, or that every woman who wears the first outfit isn't, but I think it's far more likely to be that way.

I also believe, very strongly, that whatever women wear, men should be expected to be in control of themselves.

I would also point out that just like with non-Muslim folks, not all Muslim women are alike. I should think that an axiom, but to many people, it seems not to be.

I love you for these two sentences alone. :wub: :wub: :wub:

Larissa Fae says that she has many close female friends, and has some male friends as well. It's not unusual in the least for people to make close friends primarily with people of the same gender, especially of the same birth sex. People are generally friends with people who have similar interests and social frameworks, and that will generally draw women closer together, and men closer together. There is nothing religious about it, it's what humans tend to do. Of course, there are many exceptions.

Again, thank you for saying far more articulately what I was trying to say. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalle Neversure

A modly reminder:

Disagreeing and even arguing are fine. But personally attacking other members isn't.

- Nalle, Gender Mod to-be

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

I wasn't under the impression that I was attacking anybody. If anything I said sounded like a personal attack, I apologize for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

I would also point out that just like with non-Muslim folks, not all Muslim women are alike. I should think that an axiom, but to many people, it seems not to be.

Ah. There's my objectionable comment. That does give off a whiff of veiled insult. My apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oaky, maybe in Christianity, that's the case. Possibly in Judaism. But in Islam, the MAIN purpose of being married is to be companions of one another, to help each other be better people, to foster good, loving relationships, and to provide a stable family life for any children, thus creating a more stable society. Islam is, in fact, AGAINST being celibate when one has sexual desire. And, if I don't feel the need for sex or marriage, I don't have to do either.

The same for Judaism.

The requirement to "be fruitful and multiply" was written about a ancient time when the earth needed more people. Some fundamentalists may still believe that; that's their CULTURAL belief, not a religious belief, and that particular cultural belief appears in all religions.

It is interesting being in the situation of having someone else tell you what your religion says and does, isn't it, Larissa? You get attacked for your dress and some murderous Islamic fundamentalists; I get attacked for the-Jews-killed-Christ silliness and for Israel's actions. It does tend to show our determination not to give up and not try to "pass".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: people being attacked... I suppose asexual people might potentially be attacked by fundamentalist Christians because they aren't being "fruitful" and "multiplying." Once asexuality is more widely known about, there may one day in the future be hate crimes against asexuals.

People in my (Catholic) church insist on interrogating me as to "why" I'm "not married" with the required 82 children...

So, what the hell am I supposed to say to these people, in a town where people think that global warming is a hoax invented by liberals and that Prez O's "death panels" are real and that he is "really a Muslim" and on and on and freakin' on... how would these people react to my being A? It's bad enough that they see me -- a woman! -- checking her own tires on her car -- it's bad enough that I'm unmarried and make my own decisions... (FYI -- all this Archie Bunker stuff is not a Catholic thing -- it's a blue collar kind of town where football is more important than education... sad, but true.)

Lock your doors at night, my dear friends... once they discover our existence they'll have a new minority to hate.

It's like living in medieval times. If you're a woman and alone and independant, they come to the conclusion you are a witch -- "Burn! Burn! Burn the witch!" The future may be more scary than it is right now. You guys sure you want this "visibility" thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

Oaky, maybe in Christianity, that's the case. Possibly in Judaism. But in Islam, the MAIN purpose of being married is to be companions of one another, to help each other be better people, to foster good, loving relationships, and to provide a stable family life for any children, thus creating a more stable society. Islam is, in fact, AGAINST being celibate when one has sexual desire. And, if I don't feel the need for sex or marriage, I don't have to do either.

The same for Judaism.

The requirement to "be fruitful and multiply" was written about a ancient time when the earth needed more people. Some fundamentalists may still believe that; that's their CULTURAL belief, not a religious belief, and that particular cultural belief appears in all religions.

It is interesting being in the situation of having someone else tell you what your religion says and does, isn't it, Larissa? You get attacked for your dress and some murderous Islamic fundamentalists; I get attacked for the-Jews-killed-Christ silliness and for Israel's actions. It does tend to show our determination not to give up and not try to "pass".

There is an interesting situation here. Now, Larissa Fae - I think you're idealizing Islamic marriages a bit too much here. What you stated may be the original intent, but it certainly isn't the reality for most Muslim women. All around the globe, Muslim women are forced into marriage, often at abhorrently young ages, and I doubt it's a happy, considerate, equal relationship. Healthy relationships may be the norm within your circle, and if it is, congratulations.

I do agree with Sally on this point - relationship dynamics generally vary more with culture than religion. I'll expand on this further, and say that education and wealth are bigger factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... On the subjects of animals, in most creatures the females are bigger and tougher than the males. And most of the exceptions are communal living mammals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oaky, maybe in Christianity, that's the case. Possibly in Judaism. But in Islam, the MAIN purpose of being married is to be companions of one another, to help each other be better people, to foster good, loving relationships, and to provide a stable family life for any children, thus creating a more stable society. Islam is, in fact, AGAINST being celibate when one has sexual desire. And, if I don't feel the need for sex or marriage, I don't have to do either.

The same for Judaism.

I am SO SMART!

The requirement to "be fruitful and multiply" was written about a ancient time when the earth needed more people. Some fundamentalists may still believe that; that's their CULTURAL belief, not a religious belief, and that particular cultural belief appears in all religions.

Many, many times, a cultural belief takes precedence over a religious belief, and becomes incorporated into a religion, and eventually taken as a religious belief.

It's called bid'a, or innovation, in Islam, and it's completely against the rules.

It is interesting being in the situation of having someone else tell you what your religion says and does, isn't it, Larissa? You get attacked for your dress and some murderous Islamic fundamentalists;

Yes, yes it is. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, but it's always interesting, and sometimes I want to bang my head against the wall because of it. What's worse is when I, as a practitioner of my religion, explain it to people, and they STILL tell me that I'm wrong.

I get attacked for the-Jews-killed-Christ silliness and for Israel's actions. It does tend to show our determination not to give up and not try to "pass".

Lol, that totally reminded me of the August 16th episode of The Daily Show. The whole episode's amazing, but it's the clip from 6:45. I want Jon Stewart's Jew babies. I really, really do. :wub: :wub:

The only reason that I would ever try to "pass" as a "normal" (as in, non-Muslim or at least non-covering) American is if my life would be in danger otherwise. That's actually the main definition of "taqqiya," or lying for the faith. If your life is in danger because you're Muslim, then it's best to stand up for your beliefs and die a martyr, but it's acceptable to be all "Praise JEEEEEEESUS!" or whatnot if it saves your life, or your family's lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that I would ever try to "pass" as a "normal" (as in, non-Muslim or at least non-covering) American is if my life would be in danger otherwise. That's actually the main definition of "taqqiya," or lying for the faith. If your life is in danger because you're Muslim, then it's best to stand up for your beliefs and die a martyr, but it's acceptable to be all "Praise JEEEEEEESUS!" or whatnot if it saves your life, or your family's lives.

Same in Judaism. A whole bunch of desperate Spanish and Portugue Jews tried that during the Inquisition but found later that their forced conversions didn't do them any good so they (the ones who weren't burned as "secret Jews") said The hell with it and fled eastward to many different countries, first to the Ottoman Empire which didn't persecute them.

Hmm, we seem to have gotten off-track thread-wise. But who cares.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

@ Y

More about dress:

Clothing is arbitrary. There are few items of clothing that cannot be worn by either sex. What defines it is culture. Traditionally male clothing is not any more androgynous than anything else. What makes it androgynous is perception. For example, take the suit:

Suits are status symbols. Differences in the cut and quality of a mens' suits indicates varying power and wealth. What makes clothing look authoritative is a combination of both expense and elegance. So, with mens' suits: The fit is essential. Expensive silk ties add to the look, as do fine shirts, tie pins, pocket squares, and cufflinks. Fancy watches are adornment, as are belts, shoes, and other accessories. Men have lots of accessories. Even if we're talking about jewelery alone, have you ever seen a rapper? They must have several pounds of the stuff on them.

Fun fact: High heels first came to prominence as sexy footwear for ...wait for it...French men.

The power and respectability of a garment is derived solely from its connection to authority. If rich, powerful, and highly educated men all wore robes, then over time, robes would be the de facto professional garment, and women would start to adopt them. They would be initially considered masculine, but over time, they'd be considered more and more androgynous. After all, what's more androgynous than a giant, shapeless dress?

Also, I think your statement that since full lips are considered conventionally attractive, women who have thin lips feel like lesser women is bull. Actually, most of what people think about attractiveness isn't true. For instance, size. Studies have shown that the most important thing is waist-to-hips ratio. No matter the weight, women whose waist circumferences are 70-90% of their hip circumferences are considered the most attractive by a sample group of heterosexual men.

Largely, attractiveness hinges on two things: perceived childbearing ability (hips and breasts in women, muscular chests and tight butts in men), and confidence. Confidence is key, and confidence is sexy.

My fear is that your focus is largely misdirected. I think that equality for women in all spheres will never be reached unless women are not expected to always act and dress like most men. Authority should rest on reason, knowledge, and good sense, and these are attributes that are found equally amongst both sides. While I think some things that women do are counterproductive, so are some masculine things. No sex is exempt, and nobody should be given a free pass not to improve their behavior.

I think that girls should be encouraged to be independent and follow their dreams. Be whatever they want to be. I think that nobody should be discouraged from a career on the basis of their sex and gender. Such a thing is wasteful. Having a career and aspirations is not innately feminine or masculine. Leadership is not in of itself innately gendered, but as men tend to be more aggressive, they are generally leaders. This does not make them good, and I think that should be realized.

I think everything should be more balanced. Women should have more career opportunities, and men should be more present in family life, and perhaps help out around the house a little more.

This is all from a first-world perspective. Globally, and even domestically, the condition of women around the world is abhorrent. In predominantly Muslim countries, women are consigned to the house, and live under the heavy-handed rule of fathers, husbands and brothers. In Africa and other countries, their genitals are mutilated. Sharia law is an infringement of human rights. I think all these things should be fought.

Most importantly, to me, the cornerstone of chauvinism is considering things "feminine" not equal to things "masculine." That is what sexism is, like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason that I would ever try to "pass" as a "normal" (as in, non-Muslim or at least non-covering) American is if my life would be in danger otherwise. That's actually the main definition of "taqqiya," or lying for the faith. If your life is in danger because you're Muslim, then it's best to stand up for your beliefs and die a martyr, but it's acceptable to be all "Praise JEEEEEEESUS!" or whatnot if it saves your life, or your family's lives.

Same in Judaism. A whole bunch of desperate Spanish and Portugue Jews tried that during the Inquisition but found later that their forced conversions didn't do them any good so they (the ones who weren't burned as "secret Jews") said The hell with it and fled eastward to many different countries, first to the Ottoman Empire which didn't persecute them.

If you feel bad about that, you can come visit me and I'll persecute you. I'll ... I'll ... make fun of your Jew hats? Wait, your Jew curls will eat me if I do ...

I'm of the very firm opinion that the side curls (peyo, right?) are actually sentient beings in symbiotic relationships with the men who wear them.

Hmm, we seem to have gotten off-track thread-wise. But who cares.

I'm an expert at bringing it back on topic. Too many times culture looks at who's more active and thus equates those individuals with power, and thus superiority. What culture fails to take into account is that it's a two-sided coin. For every caveman out there being all macho and active and hunting lions with his bare-hand, there's a cavewoman back at home, raising the next generation of cavekids, cooking the food that feeds the tribe, making the clothes that clothe the tribe ... It's just as active a role, but since it's not as flashy, it gets relegated to second-class status, as if it's not as important.

That's right, I said cavekids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Y

More about dress:

I love you for this post. Can I have your babies?

Fun fact: High heels first came to prominence as sexy footwear for ...wait for it...French men.

Oh, France. What would we do without you? :D

This is all from a first-world perspective. Globally, and even domestically, the condition of women around the world is abhorrent. In predominantly Muslim countries, women are consigned to the house, and live under the heavy-handed rule of fathers, husbands and brothers. In Africa and other countries, their genitals are mutilated. Sharia law is an infringement of human rights. I think all these things should be fought.

Most importantly, to me, the cornerstone of chauvinism is considering things "feminine" not equal to things "masculine." That is what sexism is, like it or not.

Agree with your last sentence, but what's wrong with predominantly Muslim countries is that Sharia is NOT being implemented properly. People are being stoned to death for adultery, when the Qur'an, which you can never trump, only specifies 80 lashes. I do NOT agree with that, by the way. Fine people, sure. Lash them, no. The practice of stoning came from ONE woman, who had an affair and got pregnant, and was so distraught over it that she kept badgering the Prophet (peace be with him) to stone her, and was sent away by him, but kept coming back, until he finally told her to have the baby, then he'd allow her to be stoned. It was ONE case that's now being applied as if it were, pardon the pun, gospel. Female genital mutation is NOT a Muslim practice. It's far older than that, and when Muhammad (peace be with him) heard of it, he tried to lessen the cultural practice by limiting how much of a girl one could cut. Ideally, if his practices were actually followed and culture wasn't allowed to reassert itself in that case, the practice would die out. A woman, according to the Qur'an and hadith, is NOT the slave of her male family members, and cannot be forced to do, or not do, anything by them. Forced arranged marriages, where either or both of the parties are unwilling, are completely unIslamic, and completely cultural --- like I said earlier, sometimes culture absorbs itself into religion until a purely cultural practice is considered religious. The "four witness" needed to ascertain a rape are actually required to convict for adultery; a woman who says she's been raped is supposed to be taken at her word, and needn't provide witnesses. Someone accusing someone of adultery, however, needs at LEAST four RELIABLE, well-known, TRUSTWORTHY witnesses, otherwise THEY are punished for what's essentially stealing someone's good reputation. The law that says you need two female witnesses is talking about business contracts, as a safeguard for women who may not have as much business experience as men, so that they're not taken advantage of. If you and I were to enter a business agreement, as an example, I'd maybe have Sally there with me, so that if you tried to wiggle out of the agreement later, I'd be sure to have another witness to say, "No, that's not what was agreed on." Women are able to give their testimony in court, by themselves, and be believed. Again, this is al ideally.

Women in Islam, in a time when women received NO religious education, were sold into marriages by their relatives, were INHERITED when their husbands died, who's very humanity was being debated, were allowed to initiate divorce, and win, were no longer able to be inherited or married against their will, were allowed to run their own businesses without men needing to do the talking for them, were allowed to draw up their own wedding contract, were to have the dowry paid to THEM rather than their family (as opposed to the woman's family having to pay the dowry), and were, in fact, spies, nurses, business women, political leaders, soldiers, and military leaders. It was over time that the teachings of Islam got overran by the cultures of the areas that it spread to.

The Muslim world needs more educated scholars who are qualified to interpret the Qur'an and hadith and give Sharia law a complete update.

I still want your babies for your post. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Godric

I still want your babies for your post. :P

Well now, Larissa dear... *tugs at collar*

*ahem*

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you again. I don't think that a society with sharia law can be either free or just. Laws should be based on reason, and the inalienable rights of persons. Sharia law does not do that. The testimony of a woman is half that of a man, women only inherit half as much as their brothers or other male relatives, etc.

Now, I will grant that at the time, it was a pretty landmark document, and quite a radical idea. At the time. What everyone needs to do at this point is move forward. Sharia law also calls for the execution of apostates, gays, and adulterers, and for thieves to lose a hand, and then a foot. Where is the justice in that? It requires everyone to make the Hajj (pilgrimage), and forbids alcohol and pork to be sold. Where is the freedom in that?

There are a couple of good things in there, like the poor tax, but we have that already, especially in Canada, where I live; socialism.

You say sharia law must be implemented properly. How does one implement that properly? You mentioned a fine for adulterers instead, but I don't think that's just. What people do in their private lives is between them and their spouses. Islamic law simply meddles too much with the lives of people under it. There is a problem with "proper implementation." For one thing, it has never happened with sharia law. Even if it did, it would still be considered unjust and a gross violation of human rights by an unbiased individual.

Another problem with sharia law, and things Islamic in general is that they tend to be stagnant to the extreme. No change is allowed in sharia. With secular laws, if something is found to be unjust or otherwise objectionable, it can be appealed and changed. Not so with the Koran. Regardless, an ancient desert text is no basis for a modern law. I'm sure it was great in its day, but it is a product of its culture and time, which was barbaric to the extreme. Forward motion is essential, and sharia lacks that. If you look at countries where sharia law is currently the law of the land, they are all horrible places for women to live. Pakistan is bad, Kuwait is bad, Saudi Arabia is atrocious, Malaysia is bad, Myanmar, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Yemen, Egypt, and now Chechnya...

The best Muslim countries ever were for the women within them is when they were under secular law in the 60s and 70s. Iraq was very secular, and so were Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian areas. Many women went to university, got advanced degrees, and worked as engineers, scientists, doctors, and in government. When did it all go south? It went south with sharia, and the Islamization of every facet of life. Religion needs to be a private matter. That's the only way all people can have a free life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hmm. I've always been a little more annoyed with women than men, but that's probably due to the fact that I'm a woman who spends most of her time with other women. Even with the women I know who work hard and act independent, they all seem to operate under the notion that they are mainly valued for their beauty. This really gets to me sometimes and leaves me feeling a little misogynistic.

Then again, because I tend not to be so hung up on being beautiful in that sense, a lot of guys treat me like shit or ignore me.

Men and Women suck the same :\

I would think it's equally hard to see someone objectifying themselves, as it would be for someone else (a man?) looking at a woman like an object.

But truth be told, I sometimes DO like to do things to make myself feel more pretty. I find nail polish and makeup potentially....fun. I love to fiddle around with colours and look at how changing something small (like adding eyeliner) can make me look different. Again, I do it more for creatively expressing myself, certainly not for anyone else, nor do I think I need to do so to be liked more by friends.

(I also will go to the gym to run in cold weather. But not to look better for any guy. I just like to run!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

y -- one can make oneself look nice totally without being "sexy." That is to dress feminine isn't always sexy. There is a definite difference between pretty and sexy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, when I wear make-up I feel more masculine generally. But I'm also punk/goth and if I were male-bodied I'd be a total cross-dresser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the only thing I got offended by was "women can't do math." Lies.

The rest of the things he said I think most people could tell aren't true. But the women-can't-do-math thing seems to be something that people actually think.

I wonder if he knows that the person credited with being the first computer programmer was a woman.

*goes off to do complicated genetics homework*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Math. I am sad to say I have known women who ask their husbands / boyfriends to help them figure out how to do simplistic math problems. I know other women who's husbands won't allow them to touch the checkbook, because they will f--- it up.

I will also say I'm a woman who used to be bad at math until I took finance in college and learned to like math -- financial math, that is, and in my own life I see myself as being better at handling money than many of the people I know. I know almost exactly what I have in each account, and many acquaintances of mine continue to have checks bounce, have bill collectors call them, and are buried under credit card debt. My cousin is like this and she lets her husband take control of the money and hands over her paycheck. But then in her case, it's probably a good idea. My other cousin is much more responsible and hard working, but she let her husband invest all her savings for her, and he lost it when the stock market crashed.

I don't know why more women won't learn to cope with money and financial things. It's really not that difficult. Just save more than you spend, basically, and live within your means, stay away from credit cards, and don't be frivolous. What is so complicated about that? Maybe they watch too many TV shows where women have 279 pairs of designer shoes at $2,350.00 each, so they think that's normal...

But then again, as to why more women won't cope with math and financial things on their own, like grown ups, there is the old saying, that a girl who is truly smart, won't act so smart, because smart just isn't pretty. I know it sounds out of date, but in the "dating game" that most people play, that's probably one of the best strategies to attract someone else. Unfortunately, pretty and dumb seem to just go together, somehow. Sad, but true. Maybe as asexuals, we just fail to comprehend this sort of thing... that being helpless, all that, not being able to do math or drive very well or understand technical things because they are "just so complicated," it's part of the game people still have to play to maintain "relationships." They ask for help lifting things, they ask for help opening jars, and perhaps to be needy is to be attractive? Not that I wish it were that way, but that is our society.

But what are the consequences of this very pretty helpless behavior? Of course men will think that they are better than women, if women go on and on about how technical things are too complicated, they cannot lift things, or open jars, or figure out their checkbooks -- it's pretty, sure, but it sure makes us look bad. I suppose women who act that way would rather have love than respect, and know they cannot have both at the same time.

Conclusion: Of course men are going to think they are better than women, because women act "a certain way" to be attractive. They act helpless and dumb, and therefore, men will love them, but see them as helpless and dumb. Smart, capable girls are not lovable, according to the age old wisdom. It might not be as true as it used to be, but for many people, that's just how life is.

It is my belief that men will never see women as equals until women knock it off with this helplessness game. It is not enough for women to demand equal rights, they must take equal responsibility for themselves. That is, they should quit playing cutsie-pie "oh-I'm-so-dumb" and act like stable minded, capable adults. Or how will men ever see women as emotionally stable, competent adults, if they keep playing the helplessness stuff, over and over again.

(For example, if you people reading this don't believe me: my cousin plays dumb, all the time, and really excels at it, really, she does, as in, "honeeeeee! oh I can't figure this out... !" And then she complains, "he thinks I'm dumb!" Well, there yah go!)

Question: Do men ever get sick of the helplessness crap? Or do they genuinely like it? I'll never know the answer to that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Professor Godric

Hmmm. Going back and thinking about this now, I think I need to restate - and change my position a bit. The behaviors which are considered masculine and feminine - such as aggressiveness, sexual jealousy, possessiveness, etc, and vulnerability, nurturing, empathy - are not themselves masculine or feminine. These behaviors have developed over thousands of generations as a result of sexual selection. Men who are aggressive and jealous tend to be more likely to have more offspring, and women who will just take care of the kids are more likely to have their DNA last. Now, this isn't in modern times. This is way back in primitive society - more than a thousand generations ago. This is not a matter of good or bad - it's just what happens. There are a few species of polyandrous birds, and they're very interesting to scientists, since the usual sexual roles are reversed. The females are brightly coloured, large, and highly aggressive, whereas the males are dull-coloured, small, and submissive. The males take care of the children, and the females mainly engage themselves in the business of having more sex. This is highly unusual. This typically only happens in egg-laying species, since mammals must breastfeed their young. Female investment in the children must be high, and so that's why the characteristics that did emerge did.

So, there is no real masculine or feminine way of being. What has come about has only come about because of ease, convenience, and feasibility for our primitive selves. I think that all behaviors should be open to criticism. Behaviors should not be considered good or bad on a basis of what's feminine or masculine - that is, actions and characteristics should not be admired on the sole basis of being "male." However, in places like the office, traditionally feminine behaviors are maladaptive. However, it is important to note that they are not bad because they are feminine, they are counterproductive because of the action itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, there is no real masculine or feminine way of being. What has come about has only come about because of ease, convenience, and feasibility for our primitive selves. I think that all behaviors should be open to criticism. Behaviors should not be considered good or bad on a basis of what's feminine or masculine - that is, actions and characteristics should not be admired on the sole basis of being "male." However, in places like the office, traditionally feminine behaviors are maladaptive. However, it is important to note that they are not bad because they are feminine, they are counterproductive because of the action itself.

Even so, there are human societies now that are polyandrous and/or switch the nurturing/protecting roles (at least after the children are done being breast fed). Human cultures and gender roles can be amazingly flexible, variable and complex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish some of the people I knew were flexible... but they don´t wanna be. They seem to try too hard to "fit into the box." It´s sad to see how hard they try...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen that site before. I think it's hilarious. Like ED don't take it seriously. I do like to laugh at the girly women because my brain is more masculine than feminine. I like having the brain of a man and the body of a woman. It's great being androgynous!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...