Real Women

reply to post by InTheLight


Please define "gender equality" first and then I will answer your question.

I'm not sure why its up to anyone here to define what a 'rea'l woman is. What the heck is that anyway? I am a person, and I certainly won't ever try fit into what "standard" woman should be. We don't come out of box, we aren't cyborgs, nor blow up dolls.

Every person, male or female has had a vast array of experiences that have shaped who they become, Women are not pre-programmed to be one thing, nor are men. Most people become who they are as reactions to their life experiences. Some make poor choices on how to cope, some make great choices.


Also, what one person defines as "Attractive" in a man or woman doesn't apply to everyone.

I say leave it alone and let people find their space and place in this life. If they don't fit into your world, then you have a choice to not continue to invite them in. Being angry or judgmental of them, makes you that which you seem to dislike so much in people.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Please define "gender equality" first and then I will answer your question.

"let's all be equal" sense, but in reality, it is targeting the strengths and weaknesses of women in particular, so applies mainly to women.

Let's go with not targeting just women in a post, but include men's strengths and weaknesses in there also. So, my question was do you think you missed the point of what all the other posters are trying to get across?

The way I took this thread, right, was that someone was pointing out that the phrase 'real men' gets bandied about a lot, these days (which it does) and it often ends up contradictory. As in, women want a bloke who looks good, but not someone who used a lot of product or spends hours in front of the mirror. So you want a naturally good looking bloke, ladies, yes? Cool. Well what if men want a naturally good looking girl? I'M NOT GOING OUT WITHOUT MAKE-UP NO WAY!

You see my point?

We're being asked, not to separate equality or upset each other with the statements (it was stated in the OP this isn't the place for negativity) but what we personally consider real. Which, aye, actually, is a fairly difficult question.

Because if we say real is no implants or make-up, what if someone is so concerned about their looks that they can't feel relaxed out of the house without them? Is that down to the person or down to a society view? Same goes for men. It'd be great to find someone naturally stunning, but lets face it, most people aren't.

Being real, to me, is about feeling good with yourself, working with what you have and behaving the same way towards everyone you meet. That goes for men and women, so I don't personally think there needs to be a separate category.

And, not everyone can live up to this 100% of the time. We all make schnide comments behind other peoples backs (although I'd hope we try not to go out of our way to do this), we all fall down, we all do stupid or bad things, but again, this is more real than people who don't (monks and that excluded of course, but they isolate themselves and have training), because it's part of human nature. Just like making mistakes is natural and because of this we have to hope that people can bring up that other quality humans tend to have of forgiveness.

I think the point of the thread was to find what real was, not ideal, and some people are blurring the boundaries by getting upset about the context or the title without reading into it. Because it isn't derogatory to ask what real is, or express a belief. It's derogatory when you try to mould someone into it when they're not.

So, aye. Being real is accepting your flaws and other peoples flaws, trying your best to be happy with yourself and your partner for who they are and trying your best not to slag people off without asking them first. But if you can't get all of these, then that's fine because as long as you're being yourself, you're not being fake. Which terms you real.

I'm sure I could've said that in like 3 sentences. I do like to ramble on. Sorry team.

The way I took this thread, right, was that someone was pointing out that the phrase 'real men' gets bandied about a lot, these days (which it does) and it often ends up contradictory.

Then why didn't the OP start a thread dicussing the unfairness of this bandying instead of posting what his definition of a "real woman" (as opposed to unreal woman?) is...; it appears to me to be a sly bait thread?

I am very impressed with the replies here, because most of you have cut through to the heart of the matter.

reply to post by InTheLight


It probably seems like a "sly bait thread" because you and others have failed to read between the lines as the poster before you managed to do.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by InTheLight

 

It probably seems like a "sly bait thread" because you and others have failed to read between the lines as the poster before you managed to do.

You are the failing denominator in this scenario. Sorry, for the reality check.

reply to post by InTheLight


Oh, now I see the role you wish to play. Have fun...

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Oh, now I see the role you wish to play. Have fun...

No games, just a reality check for you.