The history of sexism...where did it begin? Why? Can we rid our world of it?

[Lakon]

Friend I second you.

My brothers wife never worked outside of the house , She is the queen he is happy and now he is retired and she continue her job taken care of the house and him , both are happy , I think is great

That works very well in some cultures, particularly the enduring ones.

Now, she virtually HAS to work outside the house, to serve the state, and put the kids in childcare at the earliest, so that OTHER women can look after them so she can, well, get about the business of serving the state.

The state gains vastly greater numbers of taxpayers and consumers that way. It has nothing to do with equality. If it served the state that women should stay home and bear and rear children they would convice women of that in a flash.

 

[Stryder]

Sexism started when Women started identifying and complaining of Sexism.

Prior to that men wouldn't know they were being "sexist" as after all it didn't exist. Historically you could suggest that evolution played an important role, the men would face dangers and hunt while women would likely gather or prepare for the hunters return. In our current era however we no longer hunt (or gather as much) so roles aren't situated in stone.

Some guys likely become sexist because of the sociopathic tendency for guys to force opinions and systems like for instance the concept that "A Man should never cry" which most guys would likely have forced on them as a child. While the concept of tears is usually a response to emotion or pain, the pre-adolescent reasoning is enforced and the weak (Those that cry) bullied/abused until they are seen strong (Which is potentially years of counselling at a later point)

Incidentally I'm not bothered if men cry as long as it isn't to be manipulative of those around them that might be empathic to tears.

 

[Lakon]

Sexism started when Women started identifying and complaining of Sexism.

Prior to that men wouldn't know they were being "sexist" as after all it didn't exist. Historically you could suggest that evolution played an important role, the men would face dangers and hunt while women would likely gather or prepare for the hunters return. In our current era however we no longer hunt (or gather as much) so roles aren't situated in stone.

Some guys likely become sexist because of the sociopathic tendency for guys to force opinions and systems like for instance the concept that "A Man should never cry" which most guys would likely have forced on them as a child. While the concept of tears is usually a response to emotion or pain, the pre-adolescent reasoning is enforced and the weak (Those that cry) bullied/abused until they are seen strong (Which is potentially years of counselling at a later point)

Incidentally I'm not bothered if men cry as long as it isn't to be manipulative of those around them that might be empathic to tears.

How about if women cry so as to be manipulative of those around them. Are you as bothered as if a man did it or less bothered ?

 

[wegs]

I will elaborate more later, but in a nutshell: women wouldn't have had to react to anything, if we hadn't struggled through centuries of oppression.

I don't seek to "become like" a man nor for the pendulum to swing the other way where we don't appreciate the wonderful distinct differences of both genders. I just wish to be seen as equal in personhood, and not judged as "less than" due to my gender. Sexism is not a perception of women; it is a real problem and it doesn't need to be.

@ Lakon...thank you for the kind compliment, above.

 

[Lakon]

Billvon; reading through the thread, I see I missed a couple of your points ..

I said;
I love looking at good looking, sexy women.

You replied;
That's fine! Other people prefer looking at strong, smart women without fake hair, boobs and faces. To each their own.

How sexist is that ? The clear inference being, of a concept in your mind that good looking and sexy have to be tarted up .. or something.
The women in my life are strong, smart, without fake hair or boobs or faces .. and they are simply gorgeous.

I said;
I believe men are better than women in some things. I believe women are better than men at other things.

You replied;
True, but that's true because some PEOPLE are better than other PEOPLE at things.

Irrespective of sex ? No, not true. Men ARE better than women in some things. Women ARE better than men at other things. As evidence, see thousands of years of civilised society where men's and women's role have been quite different but complementry.

I know women who are much better athletes/daredevils/competitors than you will ever be ..

What a strange comment. I never claimed to be any of those things. Why do you need to re-enforce such an obvious fact ? We've all seen the Olympic Games, you know!

and I know men who make great dress designers

Yes, and tailors ..

and primary caregivers for their children.

Yes, me for instance. I spent several years being just that many years ago. I loved it. My earlier point was that I have never seen a male pre school worker, though I'm sure one exists .. somewhere ..

Everyone is different.

Duh ...

.. actually, you know, that's not quite true, except if stretched to the ridiculous, such as the number of hairs on their head, etc.
My experiences in life and interactions with people tell me that people are generally very similar and very predictable, particularly when they share a common culture, age or gender.

 

[Lakon]

I will elaborate more later, but in a nutshell: women wouldn't have had to react to anything, if we hadn't struggled through centuries of oppression.

Lucky women .. suffering only centuries of oppression. How many untold millions and millions of MEN have suffered horrible, cruel painful torture and death through centuries of wars ? (Only the dead have seen an end to war - Plato)

I don't seek to "become like" a man nor for the pendulum to swing the other way where we don't appreciate the wonderful distinct differences of both genders. I just wish to be seen as equal in personhood, and not judged as "less than" due to my gender. Sexism is not a perception of women; it is a real problem and it doesn't need to be.

Ugh .. straight of of PC 101, looks like.

@ Lakon...thank you for the kind compliment, above.

My pleasure. You're a good looking gal. You remind me somewhat of my daughter, though she if far more impetuous, short temptered and aggresive than you. I fear her sometimes.

 

[wegs]

How about if women cry so as to be manipulative of those around them. Are you as bothered as if a man did it or less bothered ?

Dear Diary...

Let's not turn the thread into generalizing based on one's personal issues with members of the opposite sex.

 

[wegs]

Lucky women .. suffering only centuries of oppression. How many untold millions and millions of MEN have suffered horrible, cruel painful torture and death through centuries of wars ? (Only the dead have seen an end to war - Plato)



Ugh .. straight of of PC 101, looks like.



My pleasure. You're a good looking gal. You remind me somewhat of my daughter, though she if far more impetuous, short temptered and aggresive than you. I fear her sometimes.

If she were a he, would you fear for him, given the same characteristics?
You knew I'd ask that.

Edit > wait...upon rereading, you say you FEAR HER? I thought you posted you fear for her.
One word off, can make a big difference.

 

[Lakon]

If she were a he, would you fear for him, given the same characteristics?
You knew I'd ask that.

Read it a bit more carefully. I said I fear her, not for her. I said it tounge in cheek, though in truth, she can be somewhat intimidating, what with her fiery Greek heritage.

 

[Lakon]

Dear Diary...

Let's not turn the thread into generalizing based on one's personal issues with members of the opposite sex.

Either;

1) I don't get your point, or

2) You didn't read that one properly, either. It was a direct reply to the last line of the post above it. Have another look.

 

[wegs]

Read it a bit more carefully. I said I fear her, not for her. I said it tounge in cheek, though in truth, she can be somewhat intimidating, what with her fiery Greek heritage.

Lol I edited my comment probably as you were posting this.

Either;

1) I don't get your point, or

2) You didn't read that one properly, either. It was a direct reply to the last line of the post above it. Have another look.

#2...
My bad....

 

[wegs]

Lucky women .. suffering only centuries of oppression. How many untold millions and millions of MEN have suffered horrible, cruel painful torture and death through centuries of wars ? (Only the dead have seen an end to war - Plato).

No doubt. But, would you say men are currently discriminated against? If so, please explain.
We are not speaking about the sufferings of mankind.
The thread is about sexism, specifically.

 

[Lakon]

Lol I edited my comment probably as you were posting this.


#2...
My bad....

No probs. I make some serious bloopers myself by rushing through. In fact, I've been doing none recently .. amazing !

 

[Kholdstare]

This video summarizes the oppression part very well.

[video=youtube;ZtadicCYfbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtadicCYfbo[/video]

As for sexism? Yeah whatever. I like looking at smart, buxom women until they open their mouth. Who cares your words have nothing to do with your boobs. It does not make boobs anymore attractive to me.

 

[wegs]

[video=youtube;ZtadicCYfbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtadicCYfbo[/video]

As for sexism? Yeah whatever. I like looking at smart, buxom women until they open their mouth. Who cares your words have nothing to do with your boobs. It does not make boobs anymore attractive to me.

"Your words have nothing to do with your boobs."

You are very eloquent.
Has anyone ever told you that?

 

[billvon]

How sexist is that ? The clear inference being, of a concept in your mind that good looking and sexy have to be tarted up .. or something.

Nope. I just have different preferences than you do.

The women in my life are strong, smart, without fake hair or boobs or faces .. and they are simply gorgeous.

That's great! Even if some people would claim that makes them dykey or too masculine.

Irrespective of sex ? No, not true. Men ARE better than women in some things.

Name one. (other than reproductive functions, that is.)

Women ARE better than men at other things.

Name one. (other than reproductive functions, that is.)

As evidence, see thousands of years of civilised society where men's and women's role have been quite different but complementry.

Sure, that' s true. Look at evidence of hundreds of years (say, 1600 to 1860) where the role of whites vs blacks in America was quite different - but complementary. (One provided the brains, one the brawn.) I hope you would not argue that that historical difference would justify such roles today!

.. actually, you know, that's not quite true, except if stretched to the ridiculous, such as the number of hairs on their head, etc.
My experiences in life and interactions with people tell me that people are generally very similar and very predictable, particularly when they share a common culture, age or gender.

My experience is that people see what they want to see. If you go somewhere and expect to see the women be the secretaries and men be the leaders, that's what you will see. Go in without those preconceptions and you'll see something a bit different.

 

[wegs]

Sexism started when Women started identifying and complaining of Sexism.

It existed, it just wasn't labeled as such...and women didn't 'complain' about it. (out of fear most likely)
Ignorance was bliss eh? For the men, I mean.

I'm sure there were happy women...but it was because their husbands back 'in the day' treated them well. You presume all the happy wives were ok with being treated as subservient. ''Until they realized what sexism was.'' lol No...they probably had decent husbands.

Prior to that men wouldn't know they were being "sexist" as after all it didn't exist. Historically you could suggest that evolution played an important role, the men would face dangers and hunt while women would likely gather or prepare for the hunters return. In our current era however we no longer hunt (or gather as much) so roles aren't situated in stone.

True.

Thought this was an interesting article about a stay at home dad. Sometimes, life throws a curve ball at you.
A man who is not hung up on gender roles, will do what's necessary to take care of his family...no matter what it ''looks like'' to the outside world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/michael-zorek-stay-at-home-dad_n_3274715.html

Some guys likely become sexist because of the sociopathic tendency for guys to force opinions and systems like for instance the concept that "A Man should never cry" which most guys would likely have forced on them as a child. While the concept of tears is usually a response to emotion or pain, the pre-adolescent reasoning is enforced and the weak (Those that cry) bullied/abused until they are seen strong (Which is potentially years of counselling at a later point)

Could be. Personally, I think men don't become sexist in adulthood. It's most likely something they witnessed at home, growing up. A number of possible scenarios >> Mom was disrespected by dad. Or dad disrespected other women. Or dad cheated on mom. Or mom was everyone's doormat. Or mom was mean/abusive to her son. And that attitude about women, carries on into adulthood. People don't really pick up strong behavioral and personality traits in adulthood. Just my opinion, of course. But, of the sexist men I've known personally, they all have varying levels of disrespect for their mothers and sisters. Men who respect their mothers, USUALLY don't disrespect women, and USUALLY are not sexist. But, there's exceptions to every rule, of course.

Incidentally I'm not bothered if men cry as long as it isn't to be manipulative of those around them that might be empathic to tears.

lol Agreed.

oh, and +1 on everything billvon said above.

 

[arauca]

It existed, it just wasn't labeled as such...and women didn't 'complain' about it. (out of fear most likely)
Ignorance was bliss eh? For the men, I mean.

I'm sure there were happy women...but it was because their husbands back 'in the day' treated them well. You presume all the happy wives were ok with being treated as subservient. ''Until they realized what sexism was.'' lol No...they probably had decent husbands.

I believe the inequality ends when man and woman reaches above 65 years old and they are retired , there is no competition for job. Then there is no more sexism

 

[Lakon]

Nope. I just have different preferences than you do.

How do you know what my preferences are ?
Earlier you assumed I was talking of tarted up women (read through the thread) and then you expressed the .. “strong, smart women without fake hair, boobs and faces” preference, and then I said mine were much the same and that the women in my life are like that. Make up your mind. You're vacillating.

That's great! Even if some people would claim that makes them dykey or too masculine.

You're definitely vacillating. Either that or you have some real weird opinions about women. You deign on tarty ones, dykey or too masculine ones (your words) .. what kind of women DO you like ? (Shudder !) ..

Name one. (other than reproductive functions, that is.)

OK. Men are better at digging ditches. As evidence, I tend the fact that I've never seen a female ditch digger (although I'm sure if I searched hard enough I would find such an exception - in which case I'd like her to be wearing a tight, low cut T shirt and shorts up to her bikini like).

This is powerful evidence that despite of your politically correct clap trap, men, emm, gravitate to digging ditches (excuse the pun) because they are more suited to it. Else, there would be a predominance of women in such a career. But there ain't !!!

Why do you think there's no women ditch diggers (to speak of)?

Name one. (other than reproductive functions, that is.)

OK, finger nail painting in nail salons. Manifestly, again, the preponderance here is female. No one PREVENTED young guys from applying to work in nail salons, but I haven't seen one (but there's GOT to be one or two somewhere, damn it). So one way or the other, the reality, the proof, is right in front of you. One way or another, women MUST be more suitable to this role.

Sure, that' s true. Look at evidence of hundreds of years (say, 1600 to 1860) where the role of whites vs blacks in America was quite different - but complementary. (One provided the brains, one the brawn.) I hope you would not argue that that historical difference would justify such roles today!

You keep trying to bring slavery, black / white into this. Maybe you should start another thread about it.

My experience is that people see what they want to see. If you go somewhere and expect to see the women be the secretaries and men be the leaders, that's what you will see. Go in without those preconceptions and you'll see something a bit different.

Yet earlier on you said 'Everyone is different'. Now you say 'people see what they want to see' .. i.e., more shifting of the goal posts. You keep making 'motherhood' statements and vacillating. Perhaps you mean that .. "people see what they want to see but they want to see that everyone is different except in cases where they (the latter) want to see that everyone is not different only those who don't want to see what they (the former) want to see" .. Strike me pink !!!

You’ve been sold a pup, ol’ chum ..
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/be+sold+a+pup

 

[Lakon]

I believe the inequality ends when man and woman reaches above 65 years old and they are retired , there is no competition for job. Then there is no more sexism

And further along, after retirement, and six foot under, the words of Andrew Marvell come to mind ..

The grave's a fine and private place
But none, I think, do there embrace ..

(from - To His Coy Mistress)