Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Feminism

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#61

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:01)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Apr 10 2013, 00:30)
Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over £5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for £5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

Because they may not have the time, energy or skills to prepare it, because the kids will winge if they eat something bland every night. Maybe they just care less about healthy eating than higher income families.

I don't know all the factors, but there's definitely a reason the less well-off get by on junk food, while you can't even find a McDonalds in richer neighbourhoods. The link between poor diet and low socioeconomic status is undeniable, whatever the cause.

I partially agree. Of course, you are spot on about about the connections between low income and poor diet and have highlighted some of the contributing factors- some which apply to all sectors of the workforce, some which don't. But the link between low socioeconomic status/low income and poor diet is a primarily Anglocentric idea. That is, it exists mostly in the English speaking developed world. It does not, for instance, apply in Spain, France, Italy, Greece or much of the Middle East, where obesity is almost solely confined to the middle and upper classes. Therefore the link between low income and poor diet is a societal one- suggesting that the income isn't actually the defining characteristic but another social aspect- lifestyle, for instance- is.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#62

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:22 PM

You missed a spot.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#63

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:22)
You missed a spot.

If you want to contribute meaningfully, please go ahead. Posts of this nature are effectively spam and will be reported as such.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#64

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:30 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:25)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:22)
You missed a spot.

If you want to contribute meaningfully, please go ahead. Posts of this nature are effectively spam and will be reported as such.

Since you are being petulant I will repost it for you.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:22)
Even if you could grow your own vegetables, you aren't going to give your kids veggie curry every night (assuming poor working parents have actually learned how to cook), so if you can't afford to take them out to eat, fast food is a good option. I've known families who seem to exclusively eat fast food.

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over £5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for £5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:25)
I've done so repeatedly.

QUOTE
instead ignoring the fact that the entire crux of your argument remains unsupported to get bogged down in chasing your tail over what I've actually said as opposed to what you've interpreted my statements as meaning.


I've given you a cost breakdown. I've pointed out the time, money and space requirements. And all you've done is put your fingers in your ears.

You have not once provided a single piece of evidence demonstrating that eating badly is cheaper than eating well. Not one external link, discussion or article. Nothing. You've claimed it repeatedly and continued to chase your tail about entirely trivial things but you haven't once demonstrated this. Why? A simple Google search produces numerous articles dispelling the myth that eating well is more expensive than eating badly. I can even link several of these for you if you wish, not that i
I really have to given that it is you whose made an unverified statement. Go on then; show me empirical proof that eating badly is cheaper than eating well.

Why are you suddenly using precooked fast food, a luxury item, as your baseline for unhealthy cheap food, when the conversation has repeatedly referenced nasty tesco frozen food?

Do you not understand that this is junk food?

Why have you gone from "growing food is cheaper than buying it" to "bought produce is cheaper than the luxury that is precooked fast food"?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#65

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE

Those articles refers to fat intake, as in: eating fatty foods. Having a high percentage of body fat =/= high cholesterol.

No they don't. Look up the difference between visceral fat and subcutaneous fat. Both are not equal. Those with very high bodyfat will have a lot of visceral fat.

QUOTE

If by "stop screwing around" you mean give up all their commitments so they can schedule in the excessive amount of exercise it would take to become thin considering the amount of food they eat... it's probably best not to tell them to do that.

But it doesn't take excessive amounts of time. Go an elliptical for 20 minutes and you'll burn 250+ calories. Go for a light jog outside for a half hour that's probably 175-200 right there too. Watch what you eat. Find out what your BMR is and eat around there everyday. It isn't hard nor does it take excessive time.

QUOTE

I made no such claim. The biggest factors obviously are poor diet and a lack of exercise. But there are a huge number of individuals who simply eat a lot (of not necessarily unhealthy foods), they exercise but can't burn off the fat because they eat so much that they'd have to exercise for hours everyday to slim down, and aren't unhealthy at all. Therefore I contend that thinness shouldn't be presented as the ideal healthy build because there's nothing inherently unhealthy about being fat- people are fat for different reasons. All I'm saying is that society shouldn't psychologically punish people for being fat.

Then they need to consume less calories. It's that simple. Just to maintain my weight I have to eat like 3300-3400 calories a day due to all of the exercise I do. If others do not want to exercise then they need to lower their calorie intake. I don't see how you can defend laziness.
QUOTE

Society shouldn't encourage people to be thin, and I think I've adequately demonstrated why doing so is arbitrary and nonsensical. Should society encourage people to eat right and be active? Sure, whatever, I'm not fussed, but encouraging thinness for its own sake is wrong. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with that.

Thinness is attractive, that's why it's encouraged. From a health standpoint, again those articles as well as common knowledge in the medical community stipulates that a high bodyfat = negative health effects. Just type it into google and you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of articles stating this. Like I said before, you're right that it's not about weight. But being fat is just not healthy.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#66

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:34 PM Edited by sivispacem, 09 April 2013 - 03:38 PM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:08)
Why are you suddenly using precooked fast food, a luxury item, as your baseline for unhealthy cheap food, when the conversation has repeatedly referenced nasty tesco frozen food?

Because Melchoir mentioned it. You aren't the only participant in this debate you know. Both of the points I have made are accurate; you have neither demonstrated that growing nor buying healthy food is more expensive than eating crap. Why do you seem to be having such difficulty with this?

The brief delay in my response has nothing to do with petulance on my part and everything to do with impatience on yours. No wonder, then, that you persistently fail to grasp the key points of the discussion.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#67

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:46 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:34)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:08)
Why are you suddenly using precooked fast food, a luxury item, as your baseline for unhealthy cheap food, when the conversation has repeatedly referenced nasty tesco frozen food?

Because Melchoir mentioned it. You aren't the only participant in this debate you know.

If that was true you would not have mentioned it in a specific reply to me. It does not refute anything that I have said.

The reality is you decided it would be convenient to move the goalposts. Again.

QUOTE
Both of the points I have made are accurate; you have neither demonstrated that growing nor buying healthy food is more expensive than eating crap. Why do you seem to be having such difficulty with this?


Tesco chicken nuggets, 320g for 72p

Four servings from a bag, so 18p a serving.

Tesco Chips 1.5Kg for 93p

Twelve servings from a bag, so just under 8p a serving.

That's 26p for the actual quote unquote food in one meal. This nasty bottom of the barrel trash made out of wheat stretching and chicken bumholes.

Can you buy a meal's worth of food, including the meat portion, that isn't unhealthy for 26p?

How much will the initial cost be to set up a sustainable self grown alternative? How long will it be before it produces something you can survive on? How long before it pays for itself? Will it actually be cheaper than 26p per meal?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#68

Posted 09 April 2013 - 03:59 PM

So Irvding, if someone is overweight but has an acceptable waist-hip ratio how are they at greater risk of health concerns than a thin person who exercises just as much and eats the same type of food?

QUOTE
But it doesn't take excessive amounts of time.

Obviously it does if you eat much more than other people. That was my entire point. That some people do exercise as much as they can but don't lose weight, and wouldn't benefit at all from weight loss.

QUOTE
From a health standpoint, again those articles as well as common knowledge in the medical community stipulates that a high bodyfat = negative health effects. Just type it into google and you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of articles stating this. Like I said before, you're right that it's not about weight. But being fat is just not healthy.

And this doesn't explain why the "healthy obese" who lose weight don't see any improved health, and in the long term suffer greater mortality.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#69

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:00 PM Edited by sivispacem, 09 April 2013 - 04:03 PM.

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:46)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:34)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:08)
Why are you suddenly using precooked fast food, a luxury item, as your baseline for unhealthy cheap food, when the conversation has repeatedly referenced nasty tesco frozen food?

Because Melchoir mentioned it. You aren't the only participant in this debate you know.

If that was true you would not have mentioned it in a specific reply to me. It does not refute anything that I have said.

The reality is you decided it would be convenient to move the goalposts. Again.

QUOTE
Both of the points I have made are accurate; you have neither demonstrated that growing nor buying healthy food is more expensive than eating crap. Why do you seem to be having such difficulty with this?


Tesco chicken nuggets, 320g for 72p

Four servings from a bag, so 18p a serving.

Tesco Chips 1.5Kg for 93p

Twelve servings from a bag, so just under 8p a serving.

That's 26p for the actual quote unquote food in one meal. This nasty bottom of the barrel trash made out of wheat stretching and chicken bumholes.

Can you buy a meal's worth of food, including the meat portion, that isn't unhealthy for 26p?

How much will the initial cost be to set up a sustainable self grown alternative? How long will it be before it produces something you can survive on? How long before it pays for itself? Will it actually be cheaper than 26p per meal?

Not once did I mention fast food in my response to the comments you made. You can see it in the damn quote. There we go again, reading comprehension issues abound.

What's more, you haven't actually demonstrated you are correct. You've given some foodstuffs and told me to try and match their per meal cost. That isn't actually proving your point, its challenging me to disprove it. That's not how evidence in debates works. Also, it's a logical fallacy to make an unverified statement and then challenge a critic to disprove it.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#70

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:12 PM Edited by LeVelocar, 09 April 2013 - 04:14 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:00)

Not once did I mention fast food in my response to the comments you made. You can see it in the damn quote. There we go again, reading comprehension issues abound.

Okay let's check!


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:30)

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over £5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for £5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?


Whoops!

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#71

Posted 09 April 2013 - 04:20 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 17:12)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 16:00)

Not once did I mention fast food in my response to the comments you made. You can see it in the damn quote. There we go again, reading comprehension issues abound.

Okay let's check!


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 14:30)

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over £5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for £5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?


Whoops!

Lets have a look at the post again, in context, instead of selectively quoting it, to see who I was actually talking to?

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:30)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 15:22)
Even if you could grow your own vegetables, you aren't going to give your kids veggie curry every night (assuming poor working parents have actually learned how to cook), so if you can't afford to take them out to eat, fast food is a good option. I've known families who seem to exclusively eat fast food.

The point I'm trying to make is that the argument that it is cheaper to eat badly than healthy is simply wrong. It is a great shame that we lack a culture in which communal agriculture takes place- though the allotment movement is a good start- but this isn't the main issue. What does a McDonalds meal for two adults and two children cost? Over a tenner, easily. Even being unbelievably stingy it would be over £5. So, given you can comfortably feed a family of four using bought produce for £5 a decent, hot, nutritious meal, how is it cheaper to survive solely on junk food?

Whoops indeed! Do you remember what I said about reading comprehension?

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#72

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:31 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Apr 7 2013, 13:04)
QUOTE (Narrow @ Saturday, Apr 6 2013, 21:34)
In my life I've never seen anyone that objectifies women, that sees them as sexual objects rather then human beings

This is simply laughable. Nobody has ever turned to you and said "what would you give that chick out of ten?" Nobody has ever asked you to rank the girls in your class from "hottest" to "ugliest"?

You've never watched porn and noticed how the women lie back, more or less still, like an object to be used? If the woman's enjoyment is depicted as secondary then they are being depicted as a sex object.

Finally, do you, or do you not, think that women are under more pressure to conform to society's ideal of beauty than men?

If you answered "no" to any of them then you are lying.


To be honest if he's anything like me then the answer to every last one of them would be no. I'm asexual therefore I've no reason to watch or view porn and also have no reason to judge or rate women on how they look and lastly seeing as I wasn't really keen on doing that I didn't have many male friends. For me a relationship is built solely on its emotional merit and nothing more, and as for you final question as to whether women are under pressure to conform to society's ideal of beauty then I'd also answer that with a no.

The pressure is all in their heads and most of my female friends don't give a damn about what others think of them, that's not a lie it's just a pure fact. If people really cared so much about how they were viewed then they would go to the furthest extent to make sure they were viewed in a positive light, the whole issue with what you've said is that it's entirely based upon the people you've met and the experiences you've had. In fact I'd go so far as to say that a lot of people find women that are more natural and care less about their appearance, far, far more attractive. I can't say so for myself as the only thing that attracts me to a person isn't their appearance but rather their personality and their traits.

Surely though you would admit to knowing at least a few people that like girls who don't care about what clothes they're wearing or who do not care for makeup. I would say that the social pressure on women to look good is quite low and the only real pressure they feel is the pressure that they enforce upon themselves.

Finally take note of the words he used, rather than. He's obviously stating that he's never met anyone that's been so obsessed with sex that they simply can't see the person behind "that ass or those tits". That's the point he's making, at least from what I can see of it.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#73

Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:41 PM

So when aren't under more pressure to be attractive? It's all in their heads? Every woman in our society randomly concocted a delusion where they're judged unfairly against an arbitrary standard of beauty?

Ari Gold
  • Ari Gold

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009
  • None

#74

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:16 PM Edited by Stefche, 10 April 2013 - 01:21 PM.

Your tone honestly implies that you genuinely believe that every woman is living under an emotional and psychological burden imposed by men which forces them to unfairly comply with what society deems as "acceptable" - I apologise if this is off the mark, but reading your opinions on the subject genuinely convey that message. Going along the same path as Lightning Strike, purely from anecdotal evidence gained through speaking frequently to my close female friends, I think this whole idea of women being pressured to conform to society's ideals regarding weight and body image, despite being subversive through what the media broadcast on television, and how models looks/dress etc. applies to a small, yet highly publicised, minority of impressionable and histrionic teenagers who may or may not be simultaneously experiencing rabid teenage angst, which only aggravates their depression and lack of self-esteem. You can't completely discount the importance of individual personality disorders afflicting a lot of young people (which I personally find doesn't receive as much attention as it should across society) in contributing to certain girls feeling that they have to conform to such minute detail... Especially in 2013 Australia, which by most accounts is quite liberal a society (unless you're in Mount Isa or something).

I don't think that every girl out there who wants to lose weight or change cosmetic appearance is doing it solely to comply to society's pressures. Sure, there'd be girls who would list that as a minor reason, but how many males are there now who go to great length to look after their bodies and what they eat in effort to look "so farkin aesthetic brah"? The entire problem of people "unfairly being forced" to comply to society's ideal image is not restricted to women. Also, what if someone, regardless of gender, wants to look better and improve themselves in an effort to improve their self-esteem? Such basic self improvement shouldn't be lumped in as "complying to societal pressures" simply because the alteration desired by the person willing to change happens to match what society as a whole views as "normal". If a fat guy who's currently healthy (which as you correctly outlined before is medically possible) decides to lose weight because he wants to look shredded, that's not necessarily him losing weight in an effort to comply with society; that's him losing weight because he wants to get a six pack and use his abs to pick up girls, or whatever. Because of these reasons, I still believe, as I addressed in an earlier post, that tackling far more practical issues such as equal-pay-for-equal-work and removing the glass ceiling in the workplace is far more important and beneficial to society than harping on about why skinny people are unfairly revered.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#75

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:05 PM

I don't want to appeal to emotion... but have you ever had a close friend with an eating disorder Stefche?

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#76

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

I've had a lot of friends with eating disorders. It's unfair and irresponsible to blame them solely on societal pressures, however instrumental they may be. But I have known men with these disorders (mainly bulimia) as well as women.

Stefche, you raise some great points. However, I think it's important to realize and address that women are treated a special group in many cases and that mentality leads to the expectation that they follow a common goal or agenda. Which is absurd, but it's how our monkey brains work. The dominant power in every case in the Western world is the White Male (Obama's half white; we've claimed him) and everything not that is the Other.

So, yeah, when a woman speaks out about job security or "leaning in" the assumption is that she speaks for all women. And that's where the problem truly lies. That's what makes it so easy to keep the glass ceiling in place and dismiss an entire group of people (half the population) in one fell swoop.

That's also why I take issue with traditional Feminism - I think drawing a line in the sand, at this point, does absolutely nothing positive for anyone.

/ramble?

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Scotland

#77

Posted 11 April 2013 - 03:06 PM

I think feminism has largely outlived its usefulness as a movement. Across the developed world we have seen vast societal programmes which aim to eradicate gender discrimination, and we are undoubtedly in a far more equal position than we were 30 years ago. People need to face up to certain realities when it comes to progress in this area however. The expectation that we ought to have professions reflective of gender demographics is an unrealistic one. Consider teachers, particularly those working at a primary/elementary level; historically dominated by women, and still the case today. I do not believe it sexist/inaccurate to assume that women generally possess qualities better suited to working with children, thus it could be reasonably expected professions such as teaching will always attract women moreso than men. Conversely, there are apparent physiological and psychological reasons that generally make men more suitable soldiers, for instance.

What is important is that we are entering an age where people do not have doors closed to them, despite the traditional/logical dominance of one gender in a particular field. The police are a perfect example; in my own country at least, there are plenty of female police officers, yet the force remains majority male. Until we reach an age where technology renders physical/psychological distinctions between the genders obsolete, I see no reason why this should change.

Furthermore, sexism's root cause requires a change in societal attitudes and perspectives. As with racism, this is not something which can comprehensively be legislated out of existence. A government may introduce a bill against sexual discrimination in employment; this does not mean the attitudes of employers automatically change overnight. It takes time for ideas to resonate throughout society.

Modern, radical feminism seems to have transformed feminism from a movement concerned with equality to a women's advocacy school of thought. They show little regard whatsoever for egalitarianism; there is no call for norms/legislation which is discriminatory against males, such as reproductive rights, criminal law and family law to be overturned. Men do not perform as well in education as women, they die younger and have higher rates of suicide and depression. Rape, domestic violence and objectification are presented by feminists as areas which are exclusively male-on-female, an utter fallacy. How can one reasonably support the belief in male hegemony and dominance when confronted with these realities?

The solution to sexism is an egalitarian approach - masculinism/feminism merely entrench divisions and enable notions of privilege. I think we already experiencing the trend towards the former; we increasingly view people as individuals with their own merits, not in terms of black/white, female/male, young/old etc. This is obviously an incomplete process, but as aforementioned, this is a process which will take time to fully realise.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#78

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:15 PM

Teachers were traditionally men, back in the early days. Women became teachers because it became a less desirable job. Your revisionist history based on the notion that women are somehow "better with kids" suggests that perhaps feminism hasn't outlived it's usefulness... at least as an educational tool? tounge.gif I agree, in part, with the sentiment though.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#79

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:44 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Apr 11 2013, 13:15)
Teachers were traditionally men, back in the early days. Women became teachers because it became a less desirable job. Your revisionist history based on the notion that women are somehow "better with kids" suggests that perhaps feminism hasn't outlived it's usefulness... at least as an educational tool? tounge.gif I agree, in part, with the sentiment though.

What early days? Like back in the 1500s? Women have been teaching young children since at the very earliest the 17th century... they very frequently became teachers once the age of discovery came about and the men were generally political leaders of the new colonies, priests, or building the towns/killing the Indians...

QUOTE

So Irvding, if someone is overweight but has an acceptable waist-hip ratio how are they at greater risk of health concerns than a thin person who exercises just as much and eats the same type of food?

Come on dick my name is Irviding not Irvding

Anyway........................................ it's about the general storage of fat in the body. Visceral fat is generally a problem in people with higher bodyfat = higher waist size = well, bad. Visceral fat is fat that builds up around organs and is well, not too good.

QUOTE


Obviously it does if you eat much more than other people. That was my entire point. That some people do exercise as much as they can but don't lose weight, and wouldn't benefit at all from weight loss.

I get your point, but like I said - if one wants to eat a lot more than other people, then either exercise accordingly, or stop eating so much. That's it.

QUOTE

And this doesn't explain why the "healthy obese" who lose weight don't see any improved health, and in the long term suffer greater mortality.

I'm sorry I highly doubt they suffer greater mortality. That's a sketchy connection at best. The healthy obese really don't exist, I'm sorry. Perhaps healthy overweight people.. but those with a BMI over like 28-29 are just not "healthy" by any means. It's not only visceral fat and other resulting internal stresses being ridiculously fat causes. There are numerous biomechanical problems with being at a high bodyfat. Puts a lot of stress on the spine, the joints (especially the entire knee complex and sacroiliac joint), and the usual inactivity associated with those who are a high bodyfat results in severe muscular atrophy. I'm sorry but your not convincing me that people who are morbidly obese are healthy and we are unfairly stigmatizing them for living that way.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#80

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:30 AM

Let's ignore the fact that you're 1000% off topic here for a moment, and take a moment to point out that the majority of teachers were men up until the mid 19th century. This is, of course, completely taken out of context - Straz was asserting that the position was "historically dominated by women" because women "generally possess qualities better suited to working with children".






Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#81

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:13 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 02:30)
Let's ignore the fact that you're 1000% off topic here for a moment, and take a moment to point out that the majority of teachers were men up until the mid 19th century. This is, of course, completely taken out of context - Straz was asserting that the position was "historically dominated by women" because women "generally possess qualities better suited to working with children".

We're never on topic in this area, don't worry about it. Two pages of this thread are almost totally about farming. I don't buy that statistic. It's hard to find data but women have been teachers way before the 19th century. Regardless, saying historically dominated by is probably off base - though I don't think saying women possess better qualities to teach younger children is off base. If we generalize this is true - sure there are some men who are really compassionate and nurturing and able to really connect to young kids. But generally we see those qualities in women.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#82

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:52 PM Edited by Otter, 12 April 2013 - 06:56 PM.

And that's the sort of bullsh*t that feminism seeks to destroy. Generalizations like that can subjegate people.

In fact, women were seen as unfit to teach because they were seen to lack the strength to deal with rowdy boys, they were less informed, and their place was in the home. Then, lo and behold, when the men sought more exciting and gainful employment, and the benefits were made clear to the administration and government (in the mid 1800s, women teachers made less 20% of what men did) people "overcame" their preconceptions.

Now, women are being described in this thread as "better suited" to the endeavor? They get it coming and going.

I won't deny that generalisations can be made about the sexes. This shouldn't dictate anything about policy, freedoms, however. And we certainly shouldn't allow these stupid generalisations to govern our views.

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Scotland

#83

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

Generalisations and averages are the only meaningful way to construct a general position though. You can't possibly formulate an opinion for every possible contingency/variation on an individual basis.

As you said yourself, they should not dictate policy and legislation; exceptions and anomalies must be catered for. The feminist aspiration of a world absent of preconceptions is not one I believe will ever be realised (it is in our very nature to judge and categorise).

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#84

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:52 AM

Yes but you'll see that even your gross generalization was flat out wrong - how you can argue that it remains a useful tool for prejudice is a little confusing to me.

blitz
  • blitz

    pizzaqueen <3

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2011
  • None
  • Newcomer of the Year 2011

#85

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:08 AM Edited by blitz, 13 April 2013 - 03:10 AM.

In my country there is a serious rape and domestic abuse issue. My dad does a lot of community and service on the weekends, I sometimes go with him. We go to women's homes (places were abandoned, mistreated, unfortunate women go for help. Many are teenagers and most are pregnant or have children). Here are some of the cases I've encountered:

-A woman's ovaries unattached from her body for the beating her husband gave her. She picked the wrong vinegar brand.

-A little girl, 12 years old, was gang raped by her uncles. She miscarriaged, but she wets herself every night in fear of her uncles returning.

-A 15 year old girl was sold by her parents when she was 12 to be some creep's sex slave. She ran away a year ago and landed on the home.

-An 11 year old girl was sold to a man who wanted to marry her. A couple of women got involved and luckily got the guy in jail, but the girl's family didn't want her back.

-A man threw acid in her wife's face because she didn't want to have sex that night.

-A young girl had a very slight retardation (very, very slight, it was hard to notice). When her parents found out they put her in an orphanage, she ran away to live on the streets and was raped by a random man. She got pregnant with a down syndrome child.

-A woman was beat so hard part of her ear was torn off. She doesn't remember anything from the beating, she woke up on the hospital 6 days later.

-A woman was beat in front of her children every night so the husband could remind the family who was in charge.

-A drunk husband came home one night to rape her 8 year old. He killed her after beating her too hard and her sisters ran away fearing they'd be next.

You don't see it, but this goes on a lot. No matter what you have to say, women are not equal to men, and men still have dominance over women in some parts of the world.

I'd love to hear some insight from you guys on the cases I listed above, it was a very shocking experience getting to talk to all these ladies.

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Scotland

#86

Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:42 PM

If you narrow your focus to domestic abuse and rape, yes, you will likely draw the conclusion that women face blatant prejudice in society. Overall though, men are more likely to be victims of crime, particularly violent crime. And interestingly, it was found in the US a few years ago that women were more likely to be the perpetrators of child abuse, neglect and murder. I have also read several reports which suggest women may also be more likely to commit violence against their partner than men are, although I have read just as many claiming the converse, so I am unsure what to make of it.

I guess the point I'm trying to drive at here is that you can find evidence supporting either side of an argument in the feminist-set male-female paradigm of interaction. For me, this makes it inherently pointless and counter-productive to make assertions such as "women are not equal to men in X regard..." or vice versa. Creating a gender war (which does not exist in the minds of anyone other than feminists and their sympathisers) does not help to solve problems such as rape, domestic violence, the wage gap (which is a debatable concept itself) etc. as both men and women have the capacity to be victims of these crimes/prejudices.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#87

Posted 15 April 2013 - 02:17 AM Edited by Melchior, 15 April 2013 - 02:19 AM.

Feminism has nothing to do with a "gender war." It's been pointed out to you multiple times in several threads that feminism does have a focus on male issues like emotional repression and unfair treatment in the judicial system, and that there are no mainstream feminists who want to persecute men and create some society of Amazon warriors or whatever it is that offends you so much about feminism. Third wave feminism focuses on women's depiction in the media* and the remaining societal inequalities, namely the gender wage gap (which is not debatable, numbers don't lie) discriminatory hiring policies, careers largely chosen by women being valued less than those chosen by men and to some extent the aforementioned male issues.

* Since you apparently haven't read through the thread, I'll repost what I brought up before about women's depiction in the media and how it is a legitimate issue:
  • Most heroes and protagonists, particularly in prime time programming, tend to be male.
  • Studies indicate that nearly three-quarters of all female characters in sitcoms are underweight, and those that are overweight are often the subject of comments or jokes about their bodies made by male characters. One study found that 80% of these comments were followed by canned laughter.
  • The problem is not only the images that are portrayed, but also those that are not. For example, womenís sports receive far less air time than menís sports on network and cable programming.
Blitz raises a valid point: violence against women. The thing that concerns feminists isn't that it occurs, it's that women tolerate it. Try to imagine you came home one day and your mother or girlfriend hit you with a bottle because you forgot to do the dishes before you left... you'd call them a psycho and bail. Well a lot of women don't bail, they stay and take the abuse for years, because of things drilled into their head by society. You're really missing the point.

Then there's mental health concerns disproportionately effecting women.

There's a plethora of things that render feminism necessary that you're completely ignoring.

Icarus
  • Icarus

    [C9] Orthonormal

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002
  • None

#88

Posted 15 April 2013 - 06:53 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Apr 14 2013, 20:17)
namely the gender wage gap (which is not debatable, numbers don't lie)

Numbers don't, but people do.

Depending who you ask, some will say the gap is 23%, while someone else might say it's around 6.6%, and they're not even sure if that 6.6% is completely due to discrimination.

Now, if you say, "Well, 6.6% or 23% is still discrimination," I have to agree, but my point comes down to one issue: credibility. I'm going to have a hard time taking someone seriously on issues if they grossly exaggerated one of their main thesis points.

That link isn't the only one that states the gender gap isn't as wide as people like to report; you'll find quite a few articles on the subject with varying percentages.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#89

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:31 AM

There is no exaggeration. In Australia there is an 18% wage difference between men and women. People may think they're clever by saying "well most of that is due to other factors" but nobody is claiming that a man and a woman doing the same job will see an 18% difference in their wages: those other factors are discrimination as well. If women are ushered by society into certain careers, that's discrimination. If careers chosen by women are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

It's completely ridiculous to think that people who study women's issues for a living are simply flat out wrong about the gender gap. I know it's nice to think that all these societal evils the left focuses on are just the result of dishonesty or carelessness and that everything is perfect, but that's certainly not the case.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Look at his little spots!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#90

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Apr 16 2013, 10:31)
If careers chosen by women are valued less by society, that's discrimination.

I'm not at all sure about this statement. I agree that if roles chosen by women are valued less because they are performed by women, then it amounts to discrimination, but given equality of opportunity and in ignorance of external contributing factors which may or may not be discriminatory, then surely a choice is a choice and someone voluntarily entering into a role that is considered less valuable by society isn't being discriminated against. That is effectively akin to saying anyone taking a low-status, menial job is being discriminated against because they all have a defining characteristic (gender, race, sexuality, nationality) and have voluntarily chosen something valued less by society. Could you explain?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users