How are women "oppressed" by men?

College Life
241

<p>

</p>

<p>You do nothing but continue to display flagrant hypocrisy, do you? Your very first reply to me (and the point I made) was a post calling my language “offensive” and then insulting me by implying that you did not want your sons to turn out like me.</p>

<p>Every single reply since you have not addressed the numerous points I have made, but instead you had the nerve to continue your role of playing-the-victim by acting like i’m the one who does nothing but attack and ignore your argument (which you never made to me)</p>

<p>Not to mention your continued condescending attitude (for your information I am considered an adult by all senses of the word, provide for my education through aid/jobs, and have work and living lined up after I graduate) in every post. How do you expect people to react? It’s my fault for enabling your mindset though - it’s all you have. Why is an adult with children posting on the college life subsection of a message board anyhow?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oooh what an intellectual reply. But i’m actually happy knowing I won’t have to read any more of your posts that do nothing but insult me and not address any of my points. Good riddance.</p>

242

<p>Feminists always argue for equal rights between men and women when it can never truly be that way. They want women to be in, what I call, an ‘alpha male’ position. </p>

<p>CEOs, the presidents in the U.S., and other natural born leaders have been men for the most part, but that’s not the end of it.</p>

<p>Most of the presidents in the U.S. were tall, big men for there time. Because they won the genetic lottery and are bigger, they are more confident, and as a result more dominant. (doesn’t mean that every tall person is a leader or the other way around, it’s just a common theme throughout history)</p>

<p>Everyone naturally, subconsciounsly judges everyone, and everyone has their insecurities. Ever hear of the napolean complex? A lot of shorter men (not all) have a chip on their shoulder thinking they always have to prove themselves to others. It’s not just women that have to prove themselves, but all people that aren’t physically dominant (deep booming voice, tall, strong posture, hard, convincing face, and many more features)</p>

<p>When women assume ‘alpha male positions,’ they are judged not just for how well they’ll do the job, but for their appearance and other physical traits. </p>

<p>My principal in high school was a 5’3, 115 pound woman who tried to always dominate us and treat us like **** to make herself feel more powerful. (when she found a piece of gum on one of the new bathroom stalls she had it tested in an attempt to find the culprit) Everyone said that our history teacher, a gruff war veteran, should have been principal because no one wants to take orders from a person half their size with a tiny little annoying voice constantly *****ing at you. If I’m going to bow down to someone, I want them to be vastly more dominant, both physcially and intellectually than me, otherwise I feel I could have done the job better than them. </p>

<p>Women are both wired to be, and socially trained to be more emotional than men; men are better decision makers and leaders.
Take a class discussing knowledge as a whole and you’ll see decision making is a combination and balance of reason and emotion. Missing either or having too much of one can destroy the decision making process.</p>

<p>It’s not fair the way the system is, but you’ve got to work with what you got. </p>

<p>If I’m born in the projects in west Philly, I don’t have the same chance to be as successful as the kid who grew up in Malibu.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean I’m going to spend my whole life *****ing about my disadvantegous starting point, but rather work my ass off to overcome it. </p>

<p>Feminists need to suck that **** up, stop blowing things out of proportion, and work hard to make it over society’s bounds. </p>

<p>Complaining is wasted energy.</p>

243

<p>Tippo - So you want the person in charge to be the physically largest as opposed to the most capable? That’s possibly the dumbest argument I’ve heard so far, and I haven’t even been on the feminist side lol. So women shouldn’t be in positions of power because we’re physically smaller and not as dominating? Makes no sense…like your principal sounds like a dominating woman, but because she’s just under average height and skinny she should be replaced by a tall fat man who can tower over everyone? haha ok. I don’t think men are better as decision making, just more assertive which is another important quality in a leader. </p>

<p>I think social conditioning leads men to be more assertive and that’s why they’re usually in positions of power. Look at women like Hilary Clinton who are very assertive, people call her a b_tch and say nasty things about her they wouldn’t say to a man. I heard all sorts of criticisms of Palin, but people didn’t compare her to a man like Clinton and she’s more feminine and maybe less assertive in her demeanor?</p>

244

<p>so how exactly are men oppressing women today outside of the workforce? what exactly is it that men do to specifically make sure women don’t get the same advantages they do? it seems like a lot of the arguments being made point to social norms being ingrained in kids from a young age. and if that’s the case then you go back to the same issue that was mentioned earlier, that is that women and men both take part in the raising of kids. as they say, it takes two to tango. and really we gotta stop discussing oppression of women by men in education because they are not oppressed in the education system.</p>

<p>also someone mentioned earlier that individual men/women don’t actively look to bring down the opposite sex consciously. this of course happens unconsciously, and i think it’s usually at the work place. for example, if two applicants are applying for a job, one female, one male, both of equal qualities as far as the job requirements are concerned, the job will most likely go to whoever fits the stereotype for that position. this is done by both men and women unconsciously.</p>

245

<p>^
Tippo did mention "vastly more dominant, both physcially and intellectually " so he did not exclusively talk about physical size. However, I think he’s confusing respect and gender. A person’s gender has nothing to do with how much respect he/she gets. </p>

<p>Margaret Thatcher (former PM of the UK) was called the “Iron Lady”.</p>

246

<p>

</p>

<p>So a female surgeon is judged by her height and not by how well she knows medicine? Okay.</p>

247

<p>“So a female surgeon is judged by her height and not by how well she knows medicine? Okay.”</p>

<p>No. Read what Tippo said again:</p>

<p>“they are judged NOT JUST for how well they’ll do the job, BUT for their appearance and other physical traits.”</p>

<p>i think Tippo brings up good points, but he’s talking more about respect from others. Body language and physiology play a large part in success. However I don’t think that’s either is THE reason why women are oppressed.</p>

248

<p>

With women specifically I don’t think it’s size as much as appearance/demeanor. Most women are smaller than men, so when they’re judged compared to men, size becomes irrelevant and other traits come to the forefront. Take the Clinton/Palin example I gave. I’ve heard peope refer to Clinton as a “she-male”, compare her to a man, all sorts of things because she’s so assertive and controlling and people perceive that about her. With Palin, people photoshopped her in a bikini, and thought of her as a hot bimbo, she came off as far more feminine and docile compared to Clinton. As far as size, both these woman were slender and like average height, but one was deemed manly and a control-freak. I know people said all sorts of horrible things about Palin, but mostly about her political views.</p>

<p>I also agree with BP when he said women aren’t oppressed in education; that’s what I was saying earlier, if anything, we have an advantage imo.</p>

249

<p>I’m not just saying you need to be big to be a leader. </p>

<p>I’m saying it makes you appear more assertive, and therefore a better leader. Having dominant traits that are physical are very important in how the general public will percieve you whether you like it or not. </p>

<p>Look at the previously used example the ‘Iron Lady.’ Just analyze that ‘title’ and you’ll see how physical appearances and descriptions make a huge difference. </p>

<p>People in the general public will always be superficial to some extent unfortunately and this will always affect the majority’s decisions, and as we know majority rules. We will never have a perfect society where everyone is judged solely on how hard they work. The more connects you have and the more popular you are, the greater your chances at success are. Looks, and social skills derived from people accepting you for your genetically determined looks, are a huge part of this.</p>

250

<p>Surgeons aren’t in leadership positions. They make decisions but its not the same as say a president or a general.</p>

251

<p>The thing with women who run for high government positions is how gender roles are percieved by the public.</p>

<p>Women are suppossed to be feminine. Men are suppossed to be masculine. </p>

<p>I hate to to break it to you but the position of the commander of one of the most prominant countries in the world is that of a very, very dominant one. Everyone will know who you are throughout the world. </p>

<p>When you take a women that actually is dominant enough for the job, she will be called a ‘man’ and ‘butch,’ because in order to lead this country you need traits that are deemed by the public as masculine. That is why Hilary Clinton was ridiculed.</p>

252

<p>This is the dumbest conversation that will never be solved and will only lead to bickering between the sexes.</p>

<p>Here’s the bottom line - There are biological differences between men and women, no doubt. To say that men and women only act different ways just to assume identities is ignorant. Men have EVOLVED in a way that they look at women and subconsciously judge their health by the shape of their body, curves, etc. Women have EVOLVED to fall for a man who is confident, muscular, alpha, etc. From this, men have defined masculinity, and women femininity, plain and simple.</p>

<p>Where it gets complicated is the creation of a society, where work is supposedly a pathway for freedom and independence for all individuals (and should be for a woman just as much as a man). A woman is able to work just as capably as a man could. HOWEVER, remember the attractive traits for a man are dominance, confident and gains power from being active, whereas a woman gains power from her beauty. EVEN though she can work just as well as a man could at, say, being a computer programmer (smirk, jk). So an employer is going to employ active dominance over passive beauty.</p>

<p>It Is The Mixing Of Emotion And Logic That Is Bringing Controversy. My advice is just to let it be. There will NEVER be total equality. Ever. Unless one thing happens- total government control. Otherwise a man will always be known for dominance and a woman for beauty. If you give a woman dominance, then she has beauty and dominance and beauty+dominance>dominance so it starts all over again. The way the things are in society is just fine, women need to stop complaining or becoming feminists just to “join the club” or do something meaningful. Go volunteer or something. Now if it’s rape or violence then sure…otherwise compare yourselves to women situation in the jungles of zimbabwe or whatever.</p>

<p>p.s. didn’t read any posts.</p>

253

<p>'This is the dumbest conversation that will never be solved and will only lead to bickering between the sexes.</p>

<p>Here’s the bottom line - There are biological differences between men and women, no doubt. To say that men and women only act different ways just to assume identities is ignorant. Men have EVOLVED in a way that they look at women and subconsciously judge their health by the shape of their body, curves, etc. Women have EVOLVED to fall for a man who is confident, muscular, alpha, etc. From this, men have defined masculinity, and women femininity, plain and simple.</p>

<p>Where it gets complicated is the creation of a society, where work is supposedly a pathway for freedom and independence for all individuals (and should be for a woman just as much as a man). A woman is able to work just as capably as a man could. HOWEVER, remember the attractive traits for a man are dominance, confident and gains power from being active, whereas a woman gains power from her beauty. EVEN though she can work just as well as a man could at, say, being a computer programmer (smirk, jk). So an employer is going to employ active dominance over passive beauty.</p>

<p>It Is The Mixing Of Emotion And Logic That Is Bringing Controversy. My advice is just to let it be. There will NEVER be total equality. Ever. Unless one thing happens- total government control. Otherwise a man will always be known for dominance and a woman for beauty. If you give a woman dominance, then she has beauty and dominance and beauty+dominance>dominance so it starts all over again. The way the things are in society is just fine, women need to stop complaining or becoming feminists just to “join the club” or do something meaningful. Go volunteer or something. Now if it’s rape or violence then sure…otherwise compare yourselves to women situation in the jungles of zimbabwe or whatever.</p>

<p>p.s. didn’t read any posts. '</p>

<p>Dude read my couple points on page 17. This is exactly what I was saying and I couldn’t agree more. This is why feminists’ efforts are pointless.</p>

254

<p>You guys are making the same points many people have made over and over again…but yeah I have a question for Tippo:

I get most of what you’re saying but not this. Let’s say a man and woman both graduated from the same college with a BS in Comp Sci, they’re both qualified for the same job - the man’s gonna get hired simply for not having a vagina? :confused:</p>

255

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not really what I said and not part of the point I was trying to make, which was that employers look at genders differently when hiring.</p>

<p>But to answer your question, personally I believe an employer would more likely hire a man for subconscious reasons, that the man is a symbol of work and confidence, like I said earlier in my post.</p>

<p>If my point has been mentioned earlier in the thread, please let the thread die…</p>

256

<p>Hmmm…</p>

257

<p>GRAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Im sick of this damn thread! WOMEN are not OPPRESED by MEN! End of freakin’ story! If women want more recognition in this world, il leur faut cultiver LEUR jardin et qu’elles me lachent en paix! J’en ai marre de tout cette merde! Pourquoi est-ce que les petites femmes toujours croyent que tout le monde en veut a elles?!?!?! C’est impossible! Je veux seulement que les deux (les hommes et les femmes!) soyent traites comme equivilants! Fauk aussi que l’on reconaisse que les hommes aussi sont “opresses” par les memes femmes! Mon dieu! J’peux pas croire que ce tread-ci existe! Moderatuers, veuillez efacher ce tread inmediatement!</p>

258

<p>and we can all understand french.</p>

259

<p>“The way the things are in society is just fine, women need to stop complaining or becoming feminists just to “join the club” or do something meaningful. Go volunteer or something. Now if it’s rape or violence then sure…otherwise compare yourselves to women situation in the jungles of zimbabwe or whatever.”</p>

<p>Darko21…you DO realize that men can be feminists too, right??</p>

<p>I didn’t decide to be a feminist to join a club or whatever you talk about…I do it because I’m interested in the subject and whether you like it or not, there are small ways in which we can change things. for example, the law (i.e. rape law) is defined in the perspective of the perpetrator instead of the victim, and this leads to a very phallocentric type of law when really it needs to address a woman’s perspective, too. </p>

<p>I volunteer plenty, thank you. I spend my spring breaks going on service trips and whatnot, so don’t tell me that volunteering is any more effective than studying gender and sex.</p>

<p>If you think rape and violence are the only topics worth addressing, you are dead wrong. we need to address to the reasons why some men (not ALL men, i realize that not all men are the devil ok?) and possibly women (i am including gay couples in this too) feel like it is appropriate behavior to abuse his or her significant other. there is obviously a dynamic of right of access as well as power/domination occurring, and not everyone learns or realizes that.</p>

260

<p>

Mon francais est tres mauvais, je n’ai pas pratique dans beaucoup d’ans, mais je pense comme vous. Je veux que cette conversation n’a pas existe.</p>

<p>Je pense que Tippo c’est un imbecil. Pour dire il est inutile de lutter est semblable pour dire que la lutte de meme droits dan les 1960 </p>