Men and Women: More Confused Than Ever

[Roman]

So where does pulling out and jerking it onto your wife's ass fall on masculinity?

 

[Perfect]

"So where does pulling out and jerking it onto your wife's ass fall on masculinity?"

I would consider birth control a feminist issue

daisy

 

[Tiassa]

you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?

It's a step along the way. The poor and the stupid, of course, will be the last to figure that out.

just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11

And immigration takes care of the rest? There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with.

regardless of what the topic of discussion is, its a misconception that there exists only one extreme

That there is more than one extreme should not lend to a misconception that the one people suffer is irrelevant.

(BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)

Would you say that "pornography" is a problem unto itself, or symptomatic of another issue?

then its not clear why with the dissolution of the traditionalist structure has empowered a greater percentage to be nonobligated

It is altering the terms of obligation. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

I guess its just easier to encounter and more socially acceptable to get away with now

To a certain degree. The alternatives presented have always been such lackluster, uninspired processes.

depends where necessity lies and one's attitude to necessity

Establish that barefoot, pregnant, and subservient is a woman's necessary place.

given that a greater number are not even providing resources, its not clear how one can deem any other obligation as superior

You really do need to give some rational thought to the subject. You're trying to paint multiple social processes as if they are all one and the same phenomenon.

Let's see, in my social circle, there are ... five? Six? Let's see, there are six fathers, three of us have regular access, and three are fighting for their children; if I open that up to relatives and such, I can say that I'm not seeing this phenomenon you're describing at all. Now, if we start including demographic considerations, there's a reason for that appearance. "Nonobligation" is more economically symptomatic than it is phenomenally related to changing sex and gender roles.

And that's the thing I don't get: If it's so important, why are the warriors out in the wrong field? Does it feel better to put women back in "their place"? Because that's all it looks like from afar, and all it smells like up close.

 

[Xev]

you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?

It would seem to be the case among my middle-class contemporaries.

just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11

The current human population? We're overburdening the planet as is. A reduction in birth rates, to coincide with greater life expectancy, is not at all a bad thing.

far from transcending the condition, american society relies on immigration, much like any other society with similar values

Of cheap, exploited labor?

(BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)

I lack free will?
So nice to find that out, finally.
Or maybe it's just those other women who lack free will. What a quandry!

Notwithstanding that, your argument (pornography is prevalent because men have stopped caring about their little ladies) betrays a stunningly poor grasp of history. Whorehouses have existed for as long as patriarchy has existed - hell, patriarchy demands the marginalization of the sex class and necessarily creates the commodification of sex. It's what the Marxists would call an inevitability. You're what anyone would call an idiot.

 

[lightgigantic]

Tiassa
“

Originally Posted by Lightgigantic

you want to argue that the re-defining of gender roles has resulted in a more "wanted" generation?
”
It's a step along the way. The poor and the stupid, of course, will be the last to figure that out.

and who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid
(To say the least, it is certainly reflected in the fertility rate)

“
just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11
”
And immigration takes care of the rest?

is there another option?

There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with

.
we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world

“
regardless of what the topic of discussion is, its a misconception that there exists only one extreme
”
That there is more than one extreme should not lend to a misconception that the one people suffer is irrelevant.

I wasn't aware that women aren't suffering at present

“
(BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)
”
Would you say that "pornography" is a problem unto itself, or symptomatic of another issue?

I would say that the loosening of established gender roles has enabled a class of women to be more thoroughly manipulated to a greater extent in greater numbers than ever precedented

“
then its not clear why with the dissolution of the traditionalist structure has empowered a greater percentage to be nonobligated
”
It is altering the terms of obligation. Welcome to the twenty-first century.

Being obligated to oneself is called selfishness, and it certainly is a popular playing card of the new millennium

“
I guess its just easier to encounter and more socially acceptable to get away with now
”
To a certain degree. The alternatives presented have always been such lackluster, uninspired processes.

particularly when a negative media image of motherhood is presented

“
depends where necessity lies and one's attitude to necessity
”
Establish that barefoot, pregnant, and subservient is a woman's necessary place.

shoes are definitely on the cards - probably no less than a dozen pairs too
as for subservience, guess you are not familiar with the asian conception of "number one lifestyle" (IOW women have other means to achieve their desires rather than yelling louder than men - certainly explains why the states is yet to sport a female president despite many other countries with "backward" gender roles having quite a few female heads of state)

so i guess that leaves us with pregnancy, and I would say that as far as childbirth is concerned, yes it is necessary for women to be pregnant - Of course that is quite a ghastly proposal where the notion of motherhood is seen as worst than tenth class (compared to say the "girlfriend" image)

“
given that a greater number are not even providing resources, its not clear how one can deem any other obligation as superior
”
You really do need to give some rational thought to the subject. You're trying to paint multiple social processes as if they are all one and the same phenomenon.

well, I would say that gender issues are kind of at the grass roots of things

Let's see, in my social circle, there are ... five? Six? Let's see, there are six fathers, three of us have regular access, and three are fighting for their children; if I open that up to relatives and such, I can say that I'm not seeing this phenomenon you're describing at all. Now, if we start including demographic considerations, there's a reason for that appearance. "Nonobligation" is more economically symptomatic than it is phenomenally related to changing sex and gender roles.

I don't think you understand - I said dissolving gender issues has provided a greater opportunity for this (as opposed to a common one)

And that's the thing I don't get: If it's so important, why are the warriors out in the wrong field? Does it feel better to put women back in "their place"?

Because that's all it looks like from afar, and all it smells like up close.

A concerted effort has been socially engineered to place them somewhere else - to compare the two you would have to arrive at some ultimate foundation for terming something "better" than another - given the ever refining atomic sense of value ("its all about me") that permeates western society, you can no doubt lend a few poignant suggestions

 

[lightgigantic]

Xev“

“
(BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)
”
I lack free will?

No

You are weak willed

 

[Jenyar]

Having a militant feminist as a best friend, and dating (a nominally less militant) one, I find myself in a unique position "behind enemy lines", so to speak. Feeling a little like Arthur in Wonderland, I encountered the idea through them that gender (and by extension, gender roles) is a social construct loosely based on historically evolved roles (eg. sexual, hunter/gatherer, protector/nurturer) - a construct that became a seat of power, from where its corruption was propagated and entrenched by abusing and oppressing the disempowered.

But is a suspended flux the solution, and is that any less prone to exploitation? Getting to a point where you can say gender is only skin deep might certainly necessary when you're trying to shift deeply engrained paradigms, but can we drive in such a neutral gear? I think we should release the clutch again at one point, before we'll be able to accelerate into whatever roles men and women choose occupy in their enlightened and mutually supportive state.

What about redeeming the traditional roles (like homemaking), rather than abolishing them as intrinsically primitive or exploitative? Once it has been engrained that people are fundamentally and spiritually equal, regardless of gender, race or social status, I think it follows that natural roles should be desexualised en destigmatised as well.

A family is also a social construct formed along natural lines, and some roles (like fatherhood or childbearing) are assigned by biology or circumstance, not by the Man. The ("Christian") West has deliberately moved away from the Eastern (Mesopotamian) model of extended families centred around a patriarch (or line of patriarchs - the tribe or clan), in the same way it has moved from dictatorship and city states to democracy (and possibly for similar reasons). But there is still government ("the Man") and public (wealth/wives/children) structured around a constitution (marriage?) that may corrupt, with consequences just as destructive (proportionally moreso) as divorce and adultery.

Maybe the real issues are those of order, justice and best practices among people who are in relationships with each other - in whatever form it manifests, voluntary or involuntary - rather than the vestiges of exploitation and corruption. Address the symptoms, yes, but don't lose sight of the fact that abuse, hatred, fear and intolerance ultimately comes from individuals - regardless of gender, race or social status.

 

[Jenyar]

Historically, married men were not so uncertain; they understood intuitively that two family responsibilities exceeded all others in significance. They were expected to protect and provide for their wives and children. You can be sure they felt strongly about that obligation.

I would say that while it's convenient to have a place and know what is required of you, it is certainly not a very good argument to keep a flawed system in place - especially not if it requires other people to have oppressive places and requirements imposed on them. Change is confusing, but we'll adapt.

That said, I do run into double standards by "emancipated" women. Just the birthpains of change, I hope. But I miss the kind of respect I was allowed to lavish on women in the role of "gentleman". Admittedly it supposes a kind of hierarchy of strength, where the stronger protects or provides for the weaker - like the youth might take care of the elderly - but it certainly never imposed it. It just seems like a very theoretical and artificial exercise in the name of equality to reduce such an attitude to arrogance, or worse. Maybe there is a new social etiquette now, but I still carry my girlfriend's groceries. Even if she can manage them herself, which I'm sure she can (as sure as she can stand in the bus or open her own doors). And I am still expected to act according to a code of conduct that might no longer have any support.

It seems for all the change that has occurred, we haven't yet found new ways of expressing or measuring character (or shall I rather say, finding good partners). With so much in flux and undefined, there's very little frame of reference to go by. Maybe that's the confusion Dr Dobson refers to.

There's a lot to be said for a good democracy if nobody is left disempowered or disenfranchised, but I don't think it is by definition better than a good monarchy, for instance, if the King (or Queen) lays down their power in service of his or her people to achieve the same result. Might not a good relationship, where each person, male or female, puts their strengths at the service of the other, have merit regardless the social structure that enables it?

Health and stability doesn't depend on the traditions by which equilibrium has been maintained, it rests on the efforts and attitudes that went into maintaining it. We just need to pick structures that are tolerant of our flaws, and discard ones that exacerbate them.

 

[Xev]

Xev“



No

You are weak willed

Certainly an amusing non-sequiter from someone who can't handle the burdens of life without emasculating himself for some fantasy-figure God.

I also note that you seem incapable of responding to the "in-dept criticism" that you so ardently whined for. Cute. It does raise the question: are you capable of independant thought or do you just regurgitate what other fundies say? The pod-people showed more originality.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

and who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid

I think there's a strange correlation taking place. If you really think family and reproduction have been so damaged by the concept that all humans deserve certain respect regardless of their gender, I should probably be quite happy to leave you so discouraged.

is there another option?

Yeah, knocking down the world's population to something that is slightly more manageable. One of the problems with the "culture of life" is that it also promotes a "culture of suffering". These are not inextricably linked; their common bond is in the myopia (at best) of the "culture of life".

we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world

Did I mention the "culture of indignity"?

At any rate, I'm sorry I took you seriously in this discussion.

I wasn't aware that women aren't suffering at present

And there is also more than one dimension to the problem.

I would say that the loosening of established gender roles has enabled a class of women to be more thoroughly manipulated to a greater extent in greater numbers than ever precedented

Ah, so we should oppress women for their own good?

Being obligated to oneself is called selfishness, and it certainly is a popular playing card of the new millennium

Personally, I think people ought to be obliged to have more of a clue what they're talking about before bothering with an opinion, but I already know I'm not going to win that one. Are you really suggesting that if a woman is not obliged to serve a man, she can only serve herself? What the hell is the point of having children at all, then?

particularly when a negative media image of motherhood is presented

Do you think children will be better off in families that want and plan for them, or families that reproduce because it's a woman's duty to pop out the babies?

shoes are definitely on the cards - probably no less than a dozen pairs too

Misogyny doesn't help your argument.

as for subservience, guess you are not familiar with the asian conception of "number one lifestyle" (IOW women have other means to achieve their desires rather than yelling louder than men - certainly explains why the states is yet to sport a female president despite many other countries with "backward" gender roles having quite a few female heads of state)

Before presuming you're presenting creative responses to oppression as a perverse demonstration of benefit (but they're so cute when they fight back!) I'll await your general enlightenment.

so i guess that leaves us with pregnancy, and I would say that as far as childbirth is concerned, yes it is necessary for women to be pregnant - Of course that is quite a ghastly proposal where the notion of motherhood is seen as worst than tenth class (compared to say the "girlfriend" image)

What is "tenth class"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with living amid a caste ideology. In my world, women are humans, they are my neighbors, and they are at least my equals. I don't understand this "tenth class" assertion.

well, I would say that gender issues are kind of at the grass roots of things

Then maybe you should find out what they are instead of parroting one of the most influential hatemongers in the United States.

I don't think you understand - I said dissolving gender issues has provided a greater opportunity for this (as opposed to a common one)

And I don't think you understand: you're making a useless, dysfunctional argument. When rich white twats like Dobson start complaining about nonobligation and gender roles, they're attempting to sublimate the economic discussion. Gender roles and tradition are something you can use to appeal to people's emotions, to generate irrational responses. Quite obviously, it works on some.

Unfortunately, the ruse is so common now that many others take offense at being expected to be so stupid.

A concerted effort has been socially engineered to place them somewhere else - to compare the two you would have to arrive at some ultimate foundation for terming something "better" than another - given the ever refining atomic sense of value ("its all about me") that permeates western society, you can no doubt lend a few poignant suggestions

What? Wait, I'll try again ... er ... um ... huh?

As to the "atomic sense of better that permeates Western society", the relation between the individual and the species--in this case, the individual and society--is a dynamic concept. And truth be told, if you want to get away from the "it's all about me" argument, we'd best take folks like Dobson, who stake the concepts of soul and redemption as the basis of their moral assertions, and move them to the rubbish tip of history. Compared to the selfishness of history and what it has wrought, I think you're making a petulant, bitter, irrational argument by invoking the phrase, "it's all about me".

"Me". The self. That's all it's ever been about to these people, and you're throwing your lot with them while complaining about selfishness? I would hope you could see the functional incongruity that suggests, at least.

Lightgigantic, you've already chosen to define the circumstance you disagree with in order to disagree with it. People who don't waste their time trying to please God and save their own souls generally have other things to think about. These other things vary according to individual and circumstance, but you're hacking out a tremendous diversity of perspectives in order to simplify to the point of stupidity a difficult and complex problem. Putting women "back in their places", at best, won't change a whit about a man's sense of obligation. It won't change domestic violence. It won't be magic fix for rearing the next generation of our young. All it will do is help men feel like they're something special in the world instead of a biological-utility minority always struggling to find a place in the world. And even that will be an illusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Certainly an amusing non-sequiter from someone who can't handle the burdens of life without emasculating himself for some fantasy-figure God.

if you can't control yourself from porn browsing I guess you have a certain authority when it comes to fantasy

I also note that you seem incapable of responding to the "in-dept criticism" that you so ardently whined for. Cute. It does raise the question: are you capable of independant thought or do you just regurgitate what other fundies say? The pod-people showed more originality.

probably because its just an attempt to steer it into a religious discussion, which doesn't really address anything except perhaps some cathartic release for yourself

 

[lightgigantic]

Tiassa

Originally Posted by Lightgigantic

and who exactly would want a child when the portrayal of motherhood is established as poor and stupid
”
I think there's a strange correlation taking place. If you really think family and reproduction have been so damaged by the concept that all humans deserve certain respect regardless of their gender, I should probably be quite happy to leave you so discouraged.

and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?

“
is there another option?
”
Yeah, knocking down the world's population to something that is slightly more manageable. One of the problems with the "culture of life" is that it also promotes a "culture of suffering". These are not inextricably linked; their common bond is in the myopia (at best) of the "culture of life".

sounds good socially - sounds utopian economically

“
we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world
”
Did I mention the "culture of indignity"?

At any rate, I'm sorry I took you seriously in this discussion.

culture of indignity?
does that involve making the notion of motherhood appear repulsive?

“
I wasn't aware that women aren't suffering at present
”
And there is also more than one dimension to the problem.

then its not clear why you are blowing your trumpet

“
I would say that the loosening of established gender roles has enabled a class of women to be more thoroughly manipulated to a greater extent in greater numbers than ever precedented
”
Ah, so we should oppress women for their own good?

Its not clear why motherhood is oppressive (although it is clear how such an idea became prominent)

“
Being obligated to oneself is called selfishness, and it certainly is a popular playing card of the new millennium
”
Personally, I think people ought to be obliged to have more of a clue what they're talking about before bothering with an opinion, but I already know I'm not going to win that one. Are you really suggesting that if a woman is not obliged to serve a man, she can only serve herself? What the hell is the point of having children at all, then?

No

I am suggesting that in an atmosphere surcharged with selfishness, child raising becomes a hobby for the rich

“
particularly when a negative media image of motherhood is presented
”
Do you think children will be better off in families that want and plan for them, or families that reproduce because it's a woman's duty to pop out the babies?

I am saying that the best family planning a society can muster is putting forth a positive image of motherhood

“
shoes are definitely on the cards - probably no less than a dozen pairs too
”
Misogyny doesn't help your argument.

She's oppressed if she has shoes
She's oppressed if she doesn't
:shrug:

“
as for subservience, guess you are not familiar with the asian conception of "number one lifestyle" (IOW women have other means to achieve their desires rather than yelling louder than men - certainly explains why the states is yet to sport a female president despite many other countries with "backward" gender roles having quite a few female heads of state)
”
Before presuming you're presenting creative responses to oppression as a perverse demonstration of benefit (but they're so cute when they fight back!) I'll await your general enlightenment.

clever words aside - the fact still stands - if you are a woman and you want to lead the country, best to try your luck in social paradigms that have an intact public image of motherhood (which excludes the USA)

“
so i guess that leaves us with pregnancy, and I would say that as far as childbirth is concerned, yes it is necessary for women to be pregnant - Of course that is quite a ghastly proposal where the notion of motherhood is seen as worst than tenth class (compared to say the "girlfriend" image)
”
What is "tenth class"?

comes after ninth class, and quite a distance from first class.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with living amid a caste ideology.

you are so liberally dogmatic that you can't form an ideal preference and number down to something lower than ten?

In my world, women are humans, they are my neighbors, and they are at least my equals. I don't understand this "tenth class" assertion.

problems arise when you start to accommodate the differences (like motherhood for instance) as repulsive - The fact that women carry children for 9 months and men don't indicates differences at the onset

“
well, I would say that gender issues are kind of at the grass roots of things
”
Then maybe you should find out what they are instead of parroting one of the most influential hatemongers in the United States.

the only hate that has been introduced in this discussion is by yourself - namely at the prospect of motherhood as lower than tenth class

“
I don't think you understand - I said dissolving gender issues has provided a greater opportunity for this (as opposed to a common one)
”
And I don't think you understand: you're making a useless, dysfunctional argument. When rich white twats like Dobson start complaining about nonobligation and gender roles, they're attempting to sublimate the economic discussion. Gender roles and tradition are something you can use to appeal to people's emotions, to generate irrational responses. Quite obviously, it works on some.

Unfortunately, the ruse is so common now that many others take offense at being expected to be so stupid.

Once again, why is motherhood synonymous with stupidity (apart from the social mechanics that have engineered such a stance)?

“
A concerted effort has been socially engineered to place them somewhere else - to compare the two you would have to arrive at some ultimate foundation for terming something "better" than another - given the ever refining atomic sense of value ("its all about me") that permeates western society, you can no doubt lend a few poignant suggestions
”
What? Wait, I'll try again ... er ... um ... huh?

As to the "atomic sense of better that permeates Western society", the relation between the individual and the species--in this case, the individual and society--is a dynamic concept. And truth be told, if you want to get away from the "it's all about me" argument, we'd best take folks like Dobson, who stake the concepts of soul and redemption as the basis of their moral assertions, and move them to the rubbish tip of history. Compared to the selfishness of history and what it has wrought, I think you're making a petulant, bitter, irrational argument by invoking the phrase, "it's all about me".

"Me". The self. That's all it's ever been about to these people, and you're throwing your lot with them while complaining about selfishness? I would hope you could see the functional incongruity that suggests, at least.

that's all nice, but to repeat, if you want to talk about something being "better" you had better explain what foundations you call upon to make such a decision - you have already admitted that women are still suffering, so the notion of women suffering under a traditionalist system can be rejected (unless you want to clarify it further)

Lightgigantic, you've already chosen to define the circumstance you disagree with in order to disagree with it. People who don't waste their time trying to please God and save their own souls generally have other things to think about. These other things vary according to individual and circumstance, but you're hacking out a tremendous diversity of perspectives in order to simplify to the point of stupidity a difficult and complex problem. Putting women "back in their places", at best, won't change a whit about a man's sense of obligation. It won't change domestic violence. It won't be magic fix for rearing the next generation of our young. All it will do is help men feel like they're something special in the world instead of a biological-utility minority always struggling to find a place in the world. And even that will be an illusion.

if you want we can take the issue of god to the religion sub forum where we can blissfully engage in such a discussion.

Alternatively could begin to start producing a coherent argument for the positive implications for the next generation of women being displaced from the notion of motherhood

 

[sniffy]

LG I take it you're not a Mother? If you were perhaps you might steer clear of making such sweeping generalisations about how women are affected, in a positive or negative way, by motherhood.

Motherhood is a very personal thing. It means different things to different individuals and to try to impose one system or one way of thinking about is not appropriate.

Most women, if people like yourself bothered to ask, would like to find support within their local comminuty which would enable them to make the choices about motherhood, including whether or not to become mothers at all. Affordable childcare should mothers want to work in whatever capacity, healthcare, social networks, transport facilities and buildings which are accessible to families are just some of the things which support women who choose to become mothers.

And for those who do not become mothers for whatever reason? Again a matter of personal choice and none of yours or society's business.

For the record the women who raised the issues of patriarchy and sexism have not been discredited at all. They are beacon's of light to those for whom such opression is still very real today.

 

[Xev]

if you can't control yourself from porn browsing I guess you have a certain authority when it comes to fantasy

What the hell? I don't even watch pornography. And what the hell does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

probably because its just an attempt to steer it into a religious discussion, which doesn't really address anything except perhaps some cathartic release for yourself

The first word of a sentance is capitalized. It's is a contraction of "it is," there is an apostrophe. And how does this:

I lack free will?
So nice to find that out, finally.
Or maybe it's just those other women who lack free will. What a quandry!

Notwithstanding that, your argument (pornography is prevalent because men have stopped caring about their little ladies) betrays a stunningly poor grasp of history. Whorehouses have existed for as long as patriarchy has existed - hell, patriarchy demands the marginalization of the sex class and necessarily creates the commodification of sex. It's what the Marxists would call an inevitability. You're what anyone would call an idiot.

have anything to do with religion?

Answer: it doesn't. You don't understand your purloined argument so you avoid any real discussion of it by lame attempts at humor and diversion through attack. You make statements like this:

clever words aside - the fact still stands - if you are a woman and you want to lead the country, best to try your luck in social paradigms that have an intact public image of motherhood (which excludes the USA)

which doesn't mean anything. Horrible English aside, it's not even a cogent argument, it's not even an argument at all.

It's a series of empty phrases that empty people like yourself use to cloak the fact that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[lightgigantic]

What the hell? I don't even watch pornography.

And what the hell does that have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

your attempt to cop out with free will

Look, you pathetic cunt -

charmed

The first word of a sentance is capitalized. It's is a contraction of "it is," there is an apostrophe. And how does this:



have anything to do with religion?

Answer: it doesn't. You don't understand your purloined argument so you avoid any real discussion of it by lame attempts at humor and diversion through attack. You make statements like this:




which doesn't mean anything. Horrible English aside, it's not even a cogent argument, it's not even an argument at all.

It's a series of empty phrases that empty people like yourself use to cloak the fact that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I take it you would prefer to talk about punctuation as a meaningful alternative? (Since its such a dry topic, I guess we will have to rely on you to spice it up with a few flarey ad homs)
:shrug:

 

[Grantywanty]

Not only has there been a revolution in female sex-role identity, but
maleness has been turned upside down, too. Apart from the elements of social
etiquette mentioned earlier, much deeper questions have been raised. What
does it really mean to be a man today? We know it is unacceptable to be
"macho," whatever that is, but we're not sure how we're expected to perform.
Consider how a young husband might look upon his new role at the beginning
of married life. Is he supposed to earn a living for his wife? Well,
probably not. She may bring in more money than he. Is he expected to provide
benevolent leadership for his family in the major decisions?
[/I]

Sure, it is not easy to know exactly how to be, either as a man or a woman. nor was it before Dobson noticed there were problems with gender roles. REmember the whole madonna/whore thing? We were in boxes. We have realized these boxes may have been keeping us from our full potential and real intimacy with members of the opposite sex.

Dobson, here at least, never says where he would have drawn the line. Men used similar arguments against women who wanted the vote. They were stepping out of the box.

The truth is the old rules about what a real man and a good woman were were little prisons we carried around with us. Does that mean that a woman who is a housewife and a mother should be ashamed, hardly. If out of the range of choices she chose that role because it fit her and satisfied her, great. And if Dobson knew many feminists he would know how supportive and non-judgemental most of them are around such things.

what he wants is for women to get back in the box and not to be called on for be a cardboard figure of a man. he thinks that those of us who recognized the boxes for boxes should feel ashamed because in this transition period there are problems. He never noticed the problems that were there before.

We are making a rather big change, it will take time to sort out. And the truth is the problems of the old system are still there. Women get raped because their clothes or lack of a male partner in the vicinity meant she was asking for it. Women in meetings have to work harder to have their points taken seriously. And so on.

And men who feel the full range of their emotions run a gauntlet with a good deal of their peers, at least for a while.

People like Dobson will not come out and directly state their disrespect for and hatred of women.

 

[lightgigantic]

sniffy

LG I take it you're not a Mother? If you were perhaps you might steer clear of making such sweeping generalisations about how women are affected, in a positive or negative way, by motherhood.

since the topic is talking about societal implications and representations of motherhood, its not clear where the necessity of personal experience arises - for instance does one have to be a muslim to make a poignant comment about how muslims are portrayed in society?
(and even then, since the status of motherhood requires the co-operation from a man - or a sperm bank I guess - its not a uni-lateral topic for discussion amongst the genders)

Motherhood is a very personal thing. It means different things to different individuals and to try to impose one system or one way of thinking about is not appropriate.

do you think that societal trends can influence how individuals perceive things?
For instance do you think that societal representations of muslims can affect how individuals (both muslims and non-muslims alike) perceive muslims?
Do you think the same holds true of motherhood?

Most women, if people like yourself bothered to ask, would like to find support within their local comminuty which would enable them to make the choices about motherhood, including whether or not to become mothers at all.

I don't disagree - when it comes to determining social options, its the society that determines the variety
The suggestion is there however that the best support a woman expecting to give birth can have is that of a man (preferably the one who got her pregnant) that is properly obligated, since child birth is very much connected to financial and social issues

Affordable childcare should mothers want to work in whatever capacity, healthcare, social networks, transport facilities and buildings which are accessible to families are just some of the things which support women who choose to become mothers.

all of which were traditionally provided by properly obligated men
basically you have two options
one involves the gov't footing the responsibility and making the woman subservient to bureaucratic systems
the other involves the family body footing the responsibility, which sees the woman involved in an obligated way amongst other obligated persons (like say the husband and the extended family) (BTW obligation has two sides - one is the giving - or subservience - and the other is the taking)

In both options the issue of women being subservient is not negated
of course everyone may not be in a social position to make such a decision (especially in a society where notions of obligation are deeply eroded), but which option would you prefer?

And for those who do not become mothers for whatever reason? Again a matter of personal choice and none of yours or society's business.

well the "for whatever reason" is kind of the issue being discussed, since it has implications to the social perception of motherhood - for instance if motherhood is seen as a crippling social status as opposed to an empowering one (of course there are most definitely very real social issues why motherhood is perceived as crippling) it begs the question how did such a state of affairs develop

For the record the women who raised the issues of patriarchy and sexism have not been discredited at all. They are beacon's of light to those for whom such opression is still very real today.

while the attitude of non-obligation is certainly mutual (for instance if all men are jerks than the resultant "stuff you" from women is hardly unpredictable) it doesn't really address the real issues of raising children - IOW if women don't want to be mothers, who does?
(The current answer seems to be immigration - mostly from countries that have an intact image of motherhood BTW - ie third world, since repulsion at motherhood tends to be a first world value of late)

 

[Tiassa]

Dead end, wet end ... the horse's back end?

and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?

You're in a better position to answer the question than I am, Lightgigantic.

sounds good socially - sounds utopian economically

Only because our prevailing economic structures demand a disproportionately large and rapidly-growing poverty class.

culture of indignity?
does that involve making the notion of motherhood appear repulsive?

Actually, no. Not by the dimensions I refer to. Just to reiterate:

Lightgigantic: just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11 .... far from transcending the condition, american society relies on immigration, much like any other society with similar values .... what is the alternative to necessity? .... artificiality?

Tiassa: And immigration takes care of the rest? There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with.

Lightgigantic: we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world

Tiassa: Did I mention the "culture of indignity"?​

And now you come out with the question about motherhood? Really, should I just save us all time and move this discussion to the Cesspool?

then its not clear why you are blowing your trumpet

Um ... you asked?

Look, I'm trying to track the discussion back to where this vein started, and your whole point about women not suffering seems non sequitur:

Lightgigantic: the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)

Tiassa: Wanted? If we put more thought into when and why we reproduce, the next generation will do okay. In the meantime, when I look at the traditional roles for men and women, I see a couple of things. First, there is a sort of justification that comes from necessity. Technologically and economically, American society, at least, has transcended that condition. Secondly, there is a history of misogyny and phallosupremacy infecting those traditions. It wasn't enough that men and women should have certain roles; men just had to go out of their way to make women miserable about it. Much of the transformation Dobson and his ilk despise so greatly is in fact a backlash against the excesses within the so-called traditional structure.

Lightgigantic: regardless of what the topic of discussion is, its a misconception that there exists only one extreme .... (BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)

Tiassa: That there is more than one extreme should not lend to a misconception that the one people suffer is irrelevant.

Lightgigantic: I wasn't aware that women aren't suffering at present

Tiassa: And there is also more than one dimension to the problem.

Lightgigantic: then its not clear why you are blowing your trumpet​

So what is your point about the trumpet?

Its not clear why motherhood is oppressive (although it is clear how such an idea became prominent)

You have to pay attention to history, Lightgigantic. Women and the vote, the workplace, social and judicial equality--all of these have run up against the stumbling block of the traditional "woman's place" that both you and Dobson advocate.

Am I wrong? You don't advocate putting women "back in their place"? Then don't let Dobson write the argument for you.

I am suggesting that in an atmosphere surcharged with selfishness, child raising becomes a hobby for the rich

Dobson and his ilk are to blame for this selfishness. When the reason for anything is "pleasing God so I can get into Heaven", there's not much to trump that selfishness.

I am saying that the best family planning a society can muster is putting forth a positive image of motherhood

Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to be a little more clear on that?

She's oppressed if she has shoes
She's oppressed if she doesn't

I'm referring to the stereotype joke. Don't play stupid.

clever words aside - the fact still stands - if you are a woman and you want to lead the country, best to try your luck in social paradigms that have an intact public image of motherhood (which excludes the USA)

It is Dobson and his ilk that make it difficult for a woman to be president. Especially when one of the reasons people will vote against a woman is that a woman's place is (as Dobson prefers) in the home.

comes after ninth class, and quite a distance from first class.

As long as you're being silly ....

you are so liberally dogmatic that you can't form an ideal preference and number down to something lower than ten?

Well, making women into a chattel caste would be a step down for them.

problems arise when you start to accommodate the differences (like motherhood for instance) as repulsive - The fact that women carry children for 9 months and men don't indicates differences at the onset

Two interesting statements that seem completely unrelated. Can you patch up the gap?

the only hate that has been introduced in this discussion is by yourself - namely at the prospect of motherhood as lower than tenth class

I didn't realize that holding women as equals made mothers "lower than tenth class".

What the hell are you going on about?

Once again, why is motherhood synonymous with stupidity (apart from the social mechanics that have engineered such a stance)?

Once again, what the hell are you going on about?

if you want to talk about something being "better" you had better explain what foundations you call upon to make such a decision - you have already admitted that women are still suffering, so the notion of women suffering under a traditionalist system can be rejected

Ah, now you're at least making a little bit of sense.

Okay, think of it this way: Your house is on fire. You call the fire department. A truck arrives, and after a few minutes, it becomes obvious that one truck isn't enough; the neighborhood itself is in danger if they don't contain this fire. The process of putting out the fire is only partially complete at this point. Should the fire department (A) call for assistance, or (B) give up, walk away, and let your house burn down and maybe take the neighborhood with it?

Note the italic words in the following: Allowing women to be equal is a process that is at once absurd for its necessity and incomplete.

It is absurd that the situation is framed around whether or not society will allow equality. Additionally, this process of allowing women to be equal is incomplete.

Part of the reason it's incomplete is that the politics of equality are difficult and will never be complete; however, Dobson and his ilk are slowing the process even more. It's amazing to me that we should hold back equality in order to be sensitive and polite to the exploitative beneficiaries of inequality. In fact, I think it's sick.

if you want we can take the issue of god to the religion sub forum where we can blissfully engage in such a discussion.

And that's where you should have posted this thing to begin with. But that's beside the point now.

Alternatively could begin to start producing a coherent argument for the positive implications for the next generation of women being displaced from the notion of motherhood

You'd have to show that displacement before I'd spend the time. I don't see why I should devise counterpoints for an insupportable thesis.

 

[lightgigantic]

Grantywanty

Sure, it is not easy to know exactly how to be, either as a man or a woman. nor was it before Dobson noticed there were problems with gender roles. REmember the whole madonna/whore thing? We were in boxes. We have realized these boxes may have been keeping us from our full potential and real intimacy with members of the opposite sex.

Dobson, here at least, never says where he would have drawn the line. Men used similar arguments against women who wanted the vote. They were stepping out of the box.

The truth is the old rules about what a real man and a good woman were were little prisons we carried around with us. Does that mean that a woman who is a housewife and a mother should be ashamed, hardly. If out of the range of choices she chose that role because it fit her and satisfied her, great. And if Dobson knew many feminists he would know how supportive and non-judgemental most of them are around such things.

what he wants is for women to get back in the box and not to be called on for be a cardboard figure of a man. he thinks that those of us who recognized the boxes for boxes should feel ashamed because in this transition period there are problems. He never noticed the problems that were there before.

We are making a rather big change, it will take time to sort out. And the truth is the problems of the old system are still there. Women get raped because their clothes or lack of a male partner in the vicinity meant she was asking for it. Women in meetings have to work harder to have their points taken seriously. And so on.

And men who feel the full range of their emotions run a gauntlet with a good deal of their peers, at least for a while.

People like Dobson will not come out and directly state their disrespect for and hatred of women.

nutting out what obligations should exist between the genders can be a lengthy task

gradating such suggestions is easier - you just have to examine the children that are produced

 

[lightgigantic]

Tiassa

and why exactly is motherhood damaging to a women's sense of self respect?
”
You're in a better position to answer the question than I am, Lightgigantic.

well, there are a few suggestions in the OP how such a social concept was broadcast wholesale

“
sounds good socially - sounds utopian economically
”
Only because our prevailing economic structures demand a disproportionately large and rapidly-growing poverty class.

and prevailing economic structures are simply a reflection of desire - IOW the difficulty lies in managing things like selfishness and not population

“
culture of indignity?
does that involve making the notion of motherhood appear repulsive?
”
Actually, no. Not by the dimensions I refer to. Just to reiterate:

Lightgigantic: just to maintain the population it is required that for every 10 women 21 children are born - currently it stands somewhere around 11 .... far from transcending the condition, american society relies on immigration, much like any other society with similar values .... what is the alternative to necessity? .... artificiality?

Tiassa: And immigration takes care of the rest? There are already more humans on the planet than we know what to do with.

Lightgigantic: we have plenty ideas what to do with them - namely get them to work like slaves to maintain the status quo of the first world

Tiassa: Did I mention the "culture of indignity"?

And now you come out with the question about motherhood? Really, should I just save us all time and move this discussion to the Cesspool?

It's still unclear why maintaining the population is a source of indignity (while selfishness continues to get the green light)
“

then its not clear why you are blowing your trumpet
”
Um ... you asked?

Look, I'm trying to track the discussion back to where this vein started, and your whole point about women not suffering seems non sequitur:

Lightgigantic: the prospects of a society's future with uncertain gender roles (for instance, if society endears women to feel offended at the notion of motherhood and also men to feel nonobligated in relationships (especially those that bear children) , where does that leave the next generation?)

Tiassa: Wanted? If we put more thought into when and why we reproduce, the next generation will do okay. In the meantime, when I look at the traditional roles for men and women, I see a couple of things. First, there is a sort of justification that comes from necessity. Technologically and economically, American society, at least, has transcended that condition. Secondly, there is a history of misogyny and phallosupremacy infecting those traditions. It wasn't enough that men and women should have certain roles; men just had to go out of their way to make women miserable about it. Much of the transformation Dobson and his ilk despise so greatly is in fact a backlash against the excesses within the so-called traditional structure.

Lightgigantic: regardless of what the topic of discussion is, its a misconception that there exists only one extreme .... (BTW the history of misogny and phallosupremacy has moved ahead in leaps and bounds with contemporary pornography - made all the easier by dissolving traditional obligational sentiments that men would have otherwise upheld for women - the women who submit themselves to such a display are after all ultimately someone's daughter, sister, mother or wife that a father, brother, son or husband is not giving a damn about)

Tiassa: That there is more than one extreme should not lend to a misconception that the one people suffer is irrelevant.

Lightgigantic: I wasn't aware that women aren't suffering at present

Tiassa: And there is also more than one dimension to the problem.

Lightgigantic: then its not clear why you are blowing your trumpet

So what is your point about the trumpet?

engineering changed roles of gender (for both men and women) has not resulted in diminishing any issues of suffering - rather it has opened it up further

“
Its not clear why motherhood is oppressive (although it is clear how such an idea became prominent)
”
You have to pay attention to history, Lightgigantic. Women and the vote, the workplace, social and judicial equality--all of these have run up against the stumbling block of the traditional "woman's place" that both you and Dobson advocate.

its not clear why motherhood excludes one from voting, etc - and as for social and judicial equality, they are simply tenth class substitutes for failed gender relationships (do you feel better off in a situation where people don't manipulate you for their own selfish needs, but rather act on the platform of duty .... or would you prefer an ever expanding judicial system that is hopelessly trying to accommodate every conceivable transgression of value?)

Am I wrong? You don't advocate putting women "back in their place"? Then don't let Dobson write the argument for you.

I would say you definitely are wrong
The thread is more about the social implications rather than straw manning the author

“
I am suggesting that in an atmosphere surcharged with selfishness, child raising becomes a hobby for the rich
”
Dobson and his ilk are to blame for this selfishness. When the reason for anything is "pleasing God so I can get into Heaven", there's not much to trump that selfishness.

once again, if you want to have a discussion on what actual religious principles are as opposed to apparent ones, we can happily take it to the other subforum ... but in the meantime we are discussing something else

“
I am saying that the best family planning a society can muster is putting forth a positive image of motherhood
”
Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to be a little more clear on that?

part of that image must be recognizing the differences between the genders - IOW, contrary to militant liberal views (such as the eg of the law case against the toy shop in the OP), demanding that the genders are equal erodes this possibility

“
She's oppressed if she has shoes
She's oppressed if she doesn't
”
I'm referring to the stereotype joke. Don't play stupid.

ask a stupid question ....

“
clever words aside - the fact still stands - if you are a woman and you want to lead the country, best to try your luck in social paradigms that have an intact public image of motherhood (which excludes the USA)
”
It is Dobson and his ilk that make it difficult for a woman to be president.

Especially when one of the reasons people will vote against a woman is that a woman's place is (as Dobson prefers) in the home.

I am not making it up - all women who have lead countries of the world cultivate the "mother" image (I vaguely recall some french model who made a promising attempt to get into politics by having a party of nubile attendants that were in the habit of exposing their breasts ...)
They don't do it by pretending they are man
And they certainly don't do it by cultivating the "girlfriend" image
Now given these three images of women (the mother, the pseudo man and the girlfriend) which prominently appear in the media?

“
comes after ninth class, and quite a distance from first class.
”
As long as you're being silly ....

once again, ask a stupid question ...

“
you are so liberally dogmatic that you can't form an ideal preference and number down to something lower than ten?
”
Well, making women into a chattel caste would be a step down for them.

women are possessed by their husbands in one way
men are possessed by their wives in another
Its called a mutual relationship

drawing up relationships with terms of agreement, particularly once the prospect of family raising has surfaced, is completely futile (unless you find employment in family law I guess ...)

“
problems arise when you start to accommodate the differences (like motherhood for instance) as repulsive - The fact that women carry children for 9 months and men don't indicates differences at the onset
”
Two interesting statements that seem completely unrelated. Can you patch up the gap?

then its not clear why you have this agenda against the establishment of gender roles that make relationships based on obligation tenable

“
the only hate that has been introduced in this discussion is by yourself - namely at the prospect of motherhood as lower than tenth class
”
I didn't realize that holding women as equals made mothers "lower than tenth class".

What the hell are you going on about?


“
Once again, why is motherhood synonymous with stupidity (apart from the social mechanics that have engineered such a stance)?
”
Once again, what the hell are you going on about?

is your having a bizarre inflammatory introduction a writing device for glorifying motherhood?

“
if you want to talk about something being "better" you had better explain what foundations you call upon to make such a decision - you have already admitted that women are still suffering, so the notion of women suffering under a traditionalist system can be rejected
”
Ah, now you're at least making a little bit of sense.

Okay, think of it this way: Your house is on fire. You call the fire department. A truck arrives, and after a few minutes, it becomes obvious that one truck isn't enough; the neighborhood itself is in danger if they don't contain this fire. The process of putting out the fire is only partially complete at this point. Should the fire department (A) call for assistance, or (B) give up, walk away, and let your house burn down and maybe take the neighborhood with it?

Note the italic words in the following: Allowing women to be equal is a process that is at once absurd for its necessity and incomplete.

equal in what sense (given that there are clear differences and social implications between the genders)?

It is absurd that the situation is framed around whether or not society will allow equality. Additionally, this process of allowing women to be equal is incomplete.

A common trope of liberal dogmatism is "equality" - to bring everyone to the platform of "equality" is not only absurd but impossible
Rather than chasing mirages in the form of "equality", better to desire something more tangible like respect

In fact it seems that your major charge against Dobson is that he is not respectful ...

Part of the reason it's incomplete is that the politics of equality are difficult and will never be complete; however, Dobson and his ilk are slowing the process even more. It's amazing to me that we should hold back equality in order to be sensitive and polite to the exploitative beneficiaries of inequality. In fact, I think it's sick.

I think you have to clear up a few issues on what you are trying to attain with "equality"

“
if you want we can take the issue of god to the religion sub forum where we can blissfully engage in such a discussion.
”
And that's where you should have posted this thing to begin with. But that's beside the point now.

I was aware that Dobson was christian, but I left out those parts of the essay that indicate that - it was you who jumped the band wagon on the whole religious thing by trying to slam fundamental christianity - frankly I am not interested in either standing up nor slamming fundamental christianity ... If that takes your fancy however, just take a peek around the corner in the adjacent forum

“
Alternatively could begin to start producing a coherent argument for the positive implications for the next generation of women being displaced from the notion of motherhood
”
You'd have to show that displacement before I'd spend the time.

In your frenzy of slamming Dobson you might have overlooked how the OP is full of indications and examples of motherhood being displaced

I don't see why I should devise counterpoints for an insupportable thesis.

so you want to argue that the notion of motherhood has remained constant or increased in the past 50 years?