It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The gender war

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
There's another thread on this forum about feminist(or feminazi )...People fought a lot for this topic in political mud pit also.
I remember that when I was a primary school student,most of boys and girls (7-9years old) dislike playing with opposite gender kids,they just group with their own gender kids to play.(I didn't join any of these groups though)
Until secondary sex characteristic appear ,they start interested to play with the opposite gender people,but this kind of interest is very focused on the appearance and the secondary sex characteristic,even don't care their personality.They can't hiding it well(judging people by their appearance) when they are teenager.
When I read those gender war threads ,it let me remind the boys and girls dislike playing with opposite gender kids situation ,I think that is a nature of human dislike groups unlike themselves ,including gender differences.The appearance attractive not work on internet forum anymore,thus fighting.And those extreme feminists/sexists in news usually are not good looking in real life.
I want to say the mental nature of both gender isn't compatible mostly ,but the sexual attraction agglutinate both of them forcefully like a assembly defect.




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

When people, male or female, are truly evolved they are compatible.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo

I can't see many of "truly evolved "people base on the divorce rate and many of relationship problems nowadays.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

Perhaps truly evolved wasn't good wording... but you are right about divorce rate and not many evolved. I think what I meant was for those willing to ditch societal roles/ pigeon holes and learn not to project, compatability is possible.

I've been with my husband 11 years and never had a fight. We are like psychological twins, embracing our own sexuality and our inner opposite. Both believe feminism means societal equality but more about the right to live safely, without fear, the right to not be bullied for being feminine. It should not bully back towards men because that damages the feminine within them too. We're not ugly either.

I think what you're saying is that humanity is stuck at a level of pre-teen/teen psychology. Perhaps. But your reference to feminists being ugly or whatever word you used is a dead give away to your own psychology. You could do well to give that some thought.





posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo

"Ctrl+F" is your friend,you are the first person say the word "ugly" on this thread.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: igloo
a reply to: candlestick

When people, male or female, are truly evolved they are compatible.



Yes, it is actually an illusion propagated by the establishment that men and women cannot communicate on equal levels. I experienced it all the time in my liberal arts college. It is very simple to get someone to believe a lie. You hurt them by taking away their resources in a fabricated manner, and they get that confused with their actions having caused them to get hurt.

It is in this manner that people get confused, women think they are subservient to men and cannot stand up to them, and men think that they are not allowed to have real friends with other men or get to know their wives on a personal level. It is a sick bunch of pollycock.

Sometimes I think someone benefits in a sort of conspiratory manner, but there is the distinct possibility that no one ends up better off simply because Americans are masochistic idiots at times.

Back to your playground argument, which I am glad you made, it turns out that kids whose parents are more open-minded don't even see the problem with guys liking guys or girls liking girls or guys playing with girls and dolls or girls playing with trucks and boys - they see it as someone wanting to play with trucks, and they do.

It is the resource shorting and judging that confuse the issue and make it more complicated to the point where there is gender segregation. Why do kids ask why all the time? Because their parents can be crazy and be actively promoting unhealthy ways of life without even realizing it.

Just because our society is set up in such a way that there is a major imbalance between men and women that causes brain-dead men and suppressed women doesn't make it natural - as a race, we have advanced in technological ways to the point where some of our technology could be, or should I say is, creating this imbalance.
edit on 27amSun, 27 Apr 2014 03:51:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick
Males and females get together to reproduce. Maybe they are not supposed to live in a one to one relationship in a box (house) - who invented the institution of marriage?
If humans lived in a open community where everyone supported each other instead of being isolated, society could be a better place to live in.
In the current set up men are not allowed to have female friends if they have a partner - it makes the partner feel insecure. And it is the same the other way around - females are not allowed to have male friends as it causes too much jealousy. Everyone is segregated to a certain degree. Single people are a threat to couples. It is not always this way but it happens a lot.
Humans are divided.
edit on 27-4-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: candlestick
a reply to: igloo

"Ctrl+F" is your friend,you are the first person say the word "ugly" on this thread.


Ugly means not good looking. You said not good looking.

"And those extreme feminists/sexists in news usually are not good looking in real life."

I get that English isn't your native tongue, but come on. Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it reads. It reads like "feminists and sexists are ugly".



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1

originally posted by: candlestick
a reply to: igloo

"Ctrl+F" is your friend,you are the first person say the word "ugly" on this thread.


Ugly means not good looking. You said not good looking.

"And those extreme feminists/sexists in news usually are not good looking in real life."

I get that English isn't your native tongue, but come on. Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it reads. It reads like "feminists and sexists are ugly".


Don't you read the word extreme on first post ?
edit on 27-4-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

Boys have a Penis, Girls have a Vagina



edit on 27-4-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
My kid´s school class boys and girls plays together in recess breaks by their own choice, they play frisbee golf, soccer and all kind of outdoor games( they are now 10 years old ). Actually i have been quite surprised of the amount whole class play together.
Maybe the tolerence and how you learn to tolerate and accept opposite gender comes from learning in childhood, schools, kindergarten and homes.
I don´t see a gender war.
When kids comes to puberty the roles of man and female come more important to them. Now put puberty, media and internet in a mix, without a decent guidance you youth will be messed up. What media teaches are not exatly what has been taught to kids in our parents and grandparents time. Media hypes loose relationships and irresponsibility.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Men and women are two halves of a whole. Each is the complement of the other. That means we are different, not unequal but different. We each have our separate strengths and weaknesses. The more society tries to make us two equal halves that are interchangeable, the more conflicted we will be with ourselves and each other.

Our basic biology dictates that we're different in every way from gross anatomy right on up to our mentality to our psychology. When I say different, I don't mean superior/inferior. I mean that it balances out. What is taken from in one area is given back in another. We complement.

But we aren't taught that, and we aren't learning to value that. Instead, we set our children up to think they should be exactly the same, boy or girl.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
My kid´s school class boys and girls plays together in recess breaks by their own choice, they play frisbee golf, soccer and all kind of outdoor games( they are now 10 years old ). Actually i have been quite surprised of the amount whole class play together.
Maybe the tolerence and how you learn to tolerate and accept opposite gender comes from learning in childhood, schools, kindergarten and homes.
I don´t see a gender war.
When kids comes to puberty the roles of man and female come more important to them. Now put puberty, media and internet in a mix, without a decent guidance you youth will be messed up. What media teaches are not exatly what has been taught to kids in our parents and grandparents time. Media hypes loose relationships and irresponsibility.


Maybe you are right.The MSM love to emphasize gender difference + intolerant here.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo

Twin flame from my point of view. You are so lucky. Happy for you



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I generally prefer the company of female friends. This makes my dad suspect I'm queer. Go figure.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: candlestick

Most of the feminists that I've encountered aren't concerned with the biological or psychological roles that males and females have culturally evolved into, nor are they really interested in finding an equilibrium between male/female roles in society. Such philosophic and ethical debates tend to fall more in line with Humanism than Feminism.

The feminists that I most frequently encounter believe that they are oppressed by a kind of shadowy "Patriarchy" of masculine overlords. This "Patriarchy" does everything it can to keep women down: forcing them to have children, paying them less at work, preventing them from attaining their career goals, and shoehorning them into subservient roles in society.

Admittedly, this view seems to stem mostly from the college-age women I know, a majority of whom are also lesbians. The feminists I most frequently encounter (many of whom are my friends, mind you) all seem to think that men are unnecessary for society. Two women can raise children better than two men or a man-woman combination. Women would be better off managing the business market, and in politics, etc.

I've often wondered if a coupling of college's false-sense of living in the "real world", and the psychological implications of non-traditional gender-development, might not contribute in some way to their belief that men (whom they find no sexual attraction to, and whose primary role in society is as a defender and worker) have been oppressing their gender of the species. This isn't a tried-and-true theory, of course, just an analysis of my own small sample-size of the world, and the feminists within it.

There is definitely more to feminism than just "all men think about is sex" and "she wants the D" though. Whether or not you agree with some of the more radical views (like the ones I just listed), women do have a different experience in society than men do. Their biology and psychology is different from a man's as well though, so who really knows if their crusade is valid or not at this point.

All I know is that a woman is just as capable of making her own decisions, and living her own life, as a man is. Whether they'd both be equally efficient at, say, hard labor mining coal, or if each gender is better suited for specific tasks, remains to be seen. To discount feminism as "not good looking" women complaining is a very bad way to go about it though. After all, beauty is subjective. What you find to be unattractive, plenty of other men find to be very attractive.


~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 27/4/14 by Wandering Scribe because: typo



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: candlestick





you are the first person say the word "ugly" on this thread. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



Well ugly doesn't have to be describing physical appearance does it?


However, it seems as though you were describing peoples physical appearance in your OP as ugly or not good looking to be exact, are you always this shallow in real life or is it because you are faceless on the net?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I find there's many types of "feminisms", and some are even peculiar to certain regions or religions.
What's even more confusing is that the terms "gender" and "sex" are nowadays sometimes used interchangeably, and sometimes "gender" has a specific academic meaning.
One can be born a male or female "sex" (although not all people are born with the fully formed or appropriate genitalia), but femininity and masculinity are "gender" constructions.

For masculinity one gets the more conservative men's movements, the more egalitarian new men's movement, and a few men who are also radical feminists.

The men's movements usually want to reinforce what they perceive as "traditional" gender roles, and religious groups like the Promise Keepers or The Mighty Men ministries (in South Africa) may be good examples.
While they openly forbid violence against women (although not everyone is convinced), they do preach that men and women have different roles, and the man should be the breadwinner and the "head" of the home (the woman should be the "heart" of the home, and the happy hooker for the husband when he gets home after a long day of manual labor).
This discourse has found much support, while others see it as reactionary, and women who support it are often called "formenists" (furthering patriarchy in a language that misleadingly appeals to women).
These groups are known for homosocial behavior and men-only mass gatherings, which suggests that they like to keep social and business bonds within male power fraternities.
Their wives may have similar homosocial socialization outside the home.

The new men's movement has some affiliations with radical feminism.
They wouldn't mind being house-husbands while the woman is the breadwinner.
Although it began as a conscious political movement in the 1970s (I recall it being relatively widespread in Germany in the 1980s), nowadays a system that favors female workers in many industries via affirmative action often makes it a non-chosen necessity.
Just like the housewife was once unfairly dismissed as a "lady of leisure", such men may face discrimination from other men and women.

The radical feminists usually incorporate gender ideas as a part of their beliefs in cultural Marxism.
Patriarchy was a set of rules to divide and oppress people, and hence even a discourse that talks about gender roles in an affirming way may be classed as hate speech.
People should be freed from traditional roles and identities to perform the class struggle.
It's probably this group of academics and activists who may be called "femi-Nazis".

Many cultures and religions actually promote gender segregation between males and females outside the family.
I can only surmise that gender differences are deliberately constructed to enable such systems, and that it ultimately leads back to the fear of the heterosexual majority producing illegitimate children, which disrupts societies socially and economically.
Nobody wants to be misled into raising a cuckoo's child, and paternal DNA tests haven't always been around.
It threatens the very idea of family inheritance, and keeping hard-earned wealth within the patriarchal bloodline.

Nowadays gender studies may also look at the "tough guise" as a gender construction that appeals to many males.
This can range from a preference for male social groups or "gangs", to solitary behavior.
Such behavior has been around for a while (at least since the New Testament), although it's almost treated as dysfunctional nowadays (and it can be, although not always necessarily).
Gender politics themselves may construct such choices (men may become confused of how to approach women, and simply opt out of dating), in combination with social and economic factors.
It's often blamed on technology (especially Internet porn) and seen as the root of low birthrates in post-modern countries like Japan.
I feel that the focus on young males here is unfair and only part of the story, because the eligible women seem just as disinterested, and they may also prefer homosocial "gangs".

Strangely, cultures that seem publicly more gender segregated have higher birth rates.
Of course birth rates can be too high or low, and simply having them high isn't necessarily good for a society that wants to be prosperous, but having them too low is also not good.
The fact is that many cultures still arrange marriages for young people, because they are so gender segregated that meeting a partner of the opposite sex by chance is unlikely.
edit on 27-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale

Why you such care how I feel for others looking ?
None of your business.
l think you are shallow enough to get this conclusion.


originally posted by: halfoldman
Many cultures and religions actually promote gender segregation between males and females outside the family.
I can only surmise that gender differences are deliberately constructed to enable such systems, and that it ultimately leads back to the fear of the heterosexual majority producing illegitimate children, which disrupts societies socially and economically.
Nobody wants to be misled into raising a cuckoo's child, and paternal DNA tests haven't always been around.
It threatens the very idea of family inheritance, and keeping hard-earned wealth within the patriarchal bloodline.


I agree a part of gender differences are deliberately constructed,but there's some of gender differences is congenital.
edit on 27-4-2014 by candlestick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: candlestick
Oh for sure, some traits are inherited and biologically determined in many individuals.

We've had long standing nature vs. nurture debates (or social constructivism vs. essentialism), although I'd agree more with something like nature via nurture.
That is, we all have some good or bad potentials genetically, but it depends on the environment if those genes are activated.

I'm not a big fan however on how the terms "socially constructed" are so loosely bandied about these days by people who have barely studied them.
Social constructions can be deeply ingrained into societies and individuals, and cannot simply be dismissed as less important that determinism.
On the other hand, some gender studies have been accused of "bio-phobia".
For example, many feminists would say that the male rape of females (or other males) is always about patriarchal power, and never about sexual attraction.
While power may facilitate rape (for example, during war), I find that argument difficult to believe, since sex requires a physical reaction from the male.

Well, with my somewhat simplistic rendition of three men's movements (the core of which are aware that they are doing something political) I attempted to give various constructions of masculinities, and how they are seen as problematic.
Most men navigate them in a less aware fashion.

There's no doubt however that men across the globe are less inclined to think of themselves as gendered (with specific gender problems that require attention), and violent masculinity that affects some women also leads to the virtual slaughter and criminality of young men that is rarely discussed.
I can only surmise that political power depends on male aggression for their wars, and making men question their own disposability isn't really in the interests of any power.

With the rapid advancement of feminist ideas, I do fear that boys and men may be left behind in key areas, and instead of gender equality they may face becoming a demonized under-class in Western societies.
My solution is for men to start learning gender politics as widely as possible, not to oppress anyone else, but to make sure that we indeed hold everyone to a standard of fairness and equality.


edit on 27-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join