Post a response to this discussion thread
You mustn't mistake my lack of interest for a lack of ability. Besides, I've been busy writing term papers. I actually have better things to do than argue with you.
"Do notice C's change in tone. Now that I'm female, I'm evidently not so formidable an adversary."
I don't think my tone has changed, but I can try to be more obnoxious from now on if you'd like.
"As I've said so many times before, there are many many women who are simply forced to work to take care of their families. If this isn't acceptable to YOU, why don't you suggest a solution to the problem, rather than belittling women for having to work?...So if there are women out there that truly choose to work solely because they've been pursuaded by feminists to do so, they must be covering their own child care expenses. You're really not thinking this through, and this has to be the second or third time we've had this discussion."
Look, if we're going around in circles it's because of you. I don't think I ever said women should never venture out of the home for any reason (I said generally women should be care-givers and men should be providers, extenuating circumstances notwithstanding). What I'm arguing against is the idea that women should do all of the same tasks that men do--tasks that require strength, competitiveness and single-mindedness (characteristics that you admit men possess more then women) to be most effectively administered. If a woman, married or single, wants to go out and be a secretary, nurse, teacher, computer programmer, etc., and it doesn't affect her ability to care for her family, then more power to her. But, in many cases it does, especially if she has very young children who are at the stage of life during which they really need their mother.
It's you who're not thinking this through. Up until the advent of feminism relatively recently, women had always--save during times of war when men were away--labored within the home, regardless of their socio-economic status. You seem to think that a career woman does all of her work and then adds to the work her husband does, but when a woman works, the man is expected to help with the household chores, which, in addition to conflicting with his single-mindedness, takes time away from his own work. The result is that instead of women doing their tasks and men doing theirs, men and women split each other's tasks down the middle, which means the amount of labor is essentially the same, only it's completed much less efficiently.
"I was at a party once where, in front of a group of ladies which included their significant others, two men loudly discussed in detail their plans to fill a television with gasoline and shoot at it until it exploded. This fascinating conversation lasted forty minutes."
This party didn't by any chance take place in the Ozarks, with the guest list composed of hill folk? That silly and uncharacteristic example says more about you and the company you keep than it does about men’s need to impress women and see shiny things explode.
It is true that a desire to attract women underlies just about everything men do, but it's by no means the only determining factor. And, just because it occasionally manifests into boorish and pointlessly destructive behavior doesn't give you the right to denigrate it. It is, after all, what keeps our species extant, and it has resulted in civilization and everything good (as well as bad) that comes with that.
"(and World War I, I believe, was begun over a certain lady)"
And who would that lady be? I was under the impression that WWI started with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian rebel. What information are you privy to that the history books aren't?
"please examine the content of movies that many men both produce and enjoy - not your average chick flicks, obviously. Men are typically drawn to violence like moths to flame...well-attended movies like "Mad Max - Beyond Thunderdome"."
Well, art tends to imitate life, and vice versa, and I suppose women's movies reflect women's concerns while men's movies reflect men's concerns. Thus, violence and explosions exist in the real world and have a direct impact on men's lives, so they're then depicted in movies. What you seem to be doing, though, is making an irrelevant point about the difference between good movies and bad movies, that is, movies whose violence and explosions serve to advance a plot and illuminate a theme (e.g. Apocalypse Now), and movies whose violence and explosions exist for their own sake (e.g. Rambo). This hardly proves anything about men needing to see things explode, as there are good and bad movies in every genre. You shouldn't judge us all by our worst movies. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be judged solely by what's shown on the Lifetime Network.
" "advancing technology" rarely involves accidents where limbs are severed, unless Bill Gates has minions I don't know of that "discourage" competition."
You're employing a very narrow definition of technology. Coal mining, the building of railroads and skyscrapers, metal working, space travel, etc. all constitute the advancement of technology, and I assure you, many men--more than women--have been seriously injured or killed as a result of these advances.
"Sure. Getting gored by a bull is also a "completely natural process", as is tearing a ligament, breaking a leg, or falling off a cliff trying to get away from the bull. I don't think I'd classify those situations as "normal" just because they're "natural." "
Ah, I see you've consulted the Encyclopedia of Bad Analogies. What else could have led you to equate the intended process of bearing children with unintended circumstances involving accidents and animal attacks? What percentage of people do you suppose get gored by bulls or fall of cliffs during their lives compared to the percentage of women who give birth in a lifetime? Answer that and your question of which is more "normal" (i.e. commonplace, expected, necessary, etc.) is answered as well.
"No. Men have more testosterone, are therefore more competitive, and are therefore more focused on career, and obtaining dominance in the workplace. I think that's fairly standard science, and I'm sure it's in one of the articles you cited. For further proof, see your own statement below."
All right, fine. I agree with that, though I don't think most feminists would. So, what's your point?
"About my gender? I corrected an assumption you made about mine. You said you previously had no idea, and then asked if I was "hot". I guess YOU care."
No, about the fact that I couldn't guess your gender. Don't get so worked up about it. And I don't really care what you look like. It was meant as a stereotypically sexist joke.
"You also did not answer my parallel questions as to whether or not you are actually male, and whether or not you are, in fact, a hottie. Touchy subject?"
I am indeed male (you not being able to tell that, given all that's been said, is more ridiculous than me not being able to tell you're female), and I'm decent-looking. You never answered truthfully if you were a "hottie" either. Should I take that to imply that you're ugly? (Don't bother telling me. I really don't care.)
"If you're not prepared to discuss your own cited articles, stop referring me to them."
I referred you and Bernstein to them precisely to get you off my back because I'm getting tired of arguing with you. This debate is boring, especially when you lead us around in circles.
"No. I think he'd actually respond with intelligent commentary, which is more than I'm getting here. I just might try it."
Cute. You do recall that earlier you admitted that my argument was basically valid. I'M not likely to forget that, and I certainly won't let you forget it.
"Choosing a career, focusing on that career, and ending that career with retirement is very one-sided, whereas having children,having to work or wanting to work to make more money, and running a household is more indicative of the ability to balance many things during the course of one's day, and the course of one's life."
Well, I'm not sure there's any evidence that that's an innate or even clearly perceptible difference, especially since men often share in the housework and childrearing when their wives have careers, as I mentioned above. But, if we accept, as I probably would, that men are the more driven and single-minded sex, then wouldn't women's lack of drive and single-mindedness be reflected in the quality of their work, specifically the non-domestic work that men are driven to do more and better? This then begs the question: why not simply let men do the non-domestic work they're so good at, and leave the domestic work to women?
---------------------------------------------
Well, there you go. Against my better judgment, I've decided to give this argument another shot. However, if your response reflects your misunderstanding of everything I've said, or contains bad analogies, sweeping and unfounded generalization, and irrelevant examples, such as those in your last post, then I'm truly finished with you, and you will have won the argument by default due to your opponent's exasperation over your own failings, which is certainly no cause for breaking out the champagne.
By the way, you said earlier that you accept most of what's said in that article I cited. That means that, apart from a few minor points, we agree. So, what the hell are we arguing about, you goofball?
Post a response to this discussion thread