Post a response to this discussion thread
"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?"
Well, unless I get this one out of the way first, there's no point in going on. Accepting most of what the cited article said does not mean, of course, that "apart from a few minor points, we agree." You have consistently made far-reaching statements that overextend and pervert the basic truths contained in that article. You purport to "extrapolate" falsehoods from scientific theories, and those falsehoods are what I'm dismantling.
For example, when I first got involved with this argument, you were arguing to Bernstein that women should stick to making babies due to their biological predisposition to have them. Being roundly beaten with the "sperm donor" and "lioness" arguments (which, BTW, you never refuted) you then moved on to say that while women could have careers, those careers should be limited to the "caregiving" types of jobs to which women are most suited. You then related childcare to the ability of women to hold jobs, saying that feminists are ruining the country by convincing women to leave all the kiddies in daycare at the expense of the rest of the nation. I don't think the author of your cited article was suggesting anything along any of those lines. If you wrote as rationally as he, and kept your reasoning based in fact, I would have no problem agreeing with your "minor points" as well as your basic argument. But I can't, since you don't.
Since you couldn't spot a circular argument if one bit you on the ass, I'm sure you've been unable to pinpoint the contradictions that riddle your own posts. I love it when you do my job for me. Allow me to quote the following from your last post...
"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."
And then, "why not simply let men do the non-domestic work they're so good at, and leave the domestic work to women?"
Do I have to point out the contradiction to you? "More power to her", but "get your ass back in the house?" Are you serious, or are you just joking now? I'm not inclined to waste time refuting something you don't really believe. If you believe the former, why make the latter comment?
"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."
Well, apparently not. You can't be all that busy, or my declaration of victory would have stood unchallenged.
"I don't think my tone has changed, but I can try to be more obnoxious from now on if you'd like."
I don't think you could.
"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."
No, what you're arguing is that women should be at home, and not in the workforce, based on the above idea. I object to your argument, not the above idea. To refute, I'm stating that 1) Those characteristics are not always good in the realm of one's entire life, that women generally have more balance, and that this is a good thing and 2) That even if the above were true, there would be no reason for women not to work if they want to, basic childcare issues aside (since that really has nothing to do with women's ABILITY to do a job).
To illustrate my second point, I don't think that being an insurance agent, for example, requires manly strength, competitiveness, or single-mindedness. Old or new customers call to renew their insurance monthly based on rates established by a national office, and the agent is there to process paper, handle claims, etc. Yet, "insurance agent" is a lucrative career for many people, men and women. This job, and many like it, require no special tasks that are most "effectively administered" by a man.
Going on to address childcare issues, you really never refuted my point about childcare being readily paid for by the families of those women who truly "choose" to work. I will take it then that you've accepted that as fact.
Your next paragraph was a giant tangle of unconnected thoughts and flat chauvanism, but I'll try to pick through it with rubber gloves on:
"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."
Uh-huh, and, as I said, I think that until recently, women weren't given any drugs at childbirth, either. I've already effectively proven that "older" isn't necessarily "better". Now, what does that first statement have to do with this next one?
"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."
I seriously had to read this through several times before I realized that by "her work" you meant "household chores". Since you started out with "career woman", I was assuming you meant her career. Silly me.
Now, you mean that a man is going to take time away from his own work to come and help with the household chores? The men I know get home whenever their day is done (the timing of which is not affected by whether or not the dishes need washing) and may help their wives after they get there. Their day is not shortened in the least by the thought of any domestic chores that may be waiting for them, and in fact, may be lengthened. Women's days are generally the same. Personally, if I have a house to clean when I get home, I'm in no hurry to leave the office. That seems like a trait common to all, not a gender difference.
Additionally, do you agree that yard work is typically male or female? Careful, now. If you say male, I'd have to respond that a man's single-mindedness would conflict with lawn-mowing the same as it would be dishwashing. Why should he mow lawns, and not wash dishes? Or is yard work for females? If that's the case, then why has every male I've ever known thought it was his job to cut the grass, weedwhack, trim the bushes, etc.? This particular argument is bullshit only casually disguised as chauvanism, and either way, it smells funny.
"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."
Can you prove that? How do you know? That's a totally unsupported statement, and since it doesn't even follow logically from the preceding statement, I think you're out on a dead limb there.
"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."
Oh, no, sorry to disappoint - that conversation was between an electrical engineer and a guy in sales, and did not take place in Arkansas. I could list many other examples, but thought I would keep it short. That example is neither uncharacteristic nor indicative of my company, unless by "company" you mean "I hang around guys", which, I admit, I do. Now, interestingly enough, you go on to admit my basic point, which was...
"It is true that a desire to attract women underlies just about everything men do..."
Huh. How 'bout that.
"...but it's by no means the only determining factor."
Nor did I say it was.
"And, just because it occasionally manifests into boorish and pointlessly destructive behavior doesn't give you the right to denigrate it."
Yes, it does. I would hope that I could spot that type of behavior and eradicate it, were I the actor (actress?).
"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."
I don't think pointlessly destructive behavior has created great civilizations. I think most of us would agree on that, but apparently, you believe firing at gasoline-filled televisions is going to help perpetuate the species. Interesting.
"(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?"
None, but I and the history books are obviously privy to information that you aren't. The fight was caused by a woman. I'll cite references when I have more time, and no, I won't forget, unlike you.
"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."
No, these advance civilization, not technology. I'm employing a "narrow" definition of technology because the word in fact has a definition, which doesn't matter anyway, because the word you're perverting is "advancing". Coal mining, building roads and skyscrapers, metal working, and space travel all USE the technology that is already available. "Advancing" that technology requires a creative and typically mathematical mental process that requires no danger that I'm aware of.
"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?"
Well, I guess the very reason that the two are actually quite similar - I don't think that the majority of women in ancient times intended to get pregnant, and so that is the very type of "unintended circumstance" to which I was analogizing. We were, after all, discussing the lack of medication available to women giving birth, until very recent times. Unintended accident, available medicine = unintended accident, available medicine. Whoo, boy, that's just WAY out there - how did you manage to follow it long enough to be wrong?
"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?"
My point was, that I agree with that basic point. However, I don't believe a woman should have be entirely focused on her career in order to work outside the home. As most women want children at some point, they will have other interests, and will be generally less single-minded than men in their pursuit of a career. Why does that preclude a woman from having a career? Why do you believe that she either ought to dominate her field, or stay home? That is the basic issue on which we differ, and you've never answered that question, except to make some unsupported statement that it would be "more efficient" that way.
"And I don't really care what you look like. It was meant as a stereotypically sexist joke."
Oh, well, that makes it all OK, then. You should have told me that in the first place! I love sexism!
"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."
Well, those are all very nice statements to make - if they're true, why are you still here? If they're false, why do you bother making them?
"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."
Nor would I let you forget it. I've already readily agreed with the truth contained in your statements and scientific articles, and I am now dismantling the disturbing fallacies you claim to discern from that truth.
"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."
Is this supposed to be some sort of clever escape hatch? If you don't respond, are we all seriously supposed to think it's because my articles are full of unfounded generalizations, etc.? I don't think anyone here will be fooled by that, and it's rather sophomoric to try.
"Term paper". Hee hee.
Post a response to this discussion thread