If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Examiner)   UNC drops the word "freshman" in favor of a more gender inclusive term. First year students will now be called "long term financially obligated clients"   (examiner.com) divider line 120
    More: Asinine, University of North Carolina, gender-neutral language, pc police, freshman  
•       •       •

4835 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Oct 2012 at 5:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 01:37:08 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: The future is looking less like "Idiocracy" and more like "Demolition Man".


So, the future is a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
 
2012-10-25 01:53:55 PM  

Pathman: Gleeman: So in return fairness we're going to open up all women-only colleges to men, just like we had to do with all the male-only ones, right?

*pin drops*

/asinine is right
//makes me ashamed to be an Alumni

i went to carolina - they're maybe 1 or 2 clicks away from being a women-only college as it is.


It was a 'target rich environment', yes. NTTAWWT.
 
2012-10-25 03:38:40 PM  

Cerwin3302: Are they dropping the use of woman as well?


And how about hyperson?
 
2012-10-25 04:48:00 PM  
Easy solution: Men are called "freshmen", the chicks can be called "skirts".

Oh I'm sorry...dames don't like to be called "skirts".

Whoops...baitches don't like being called "dames".

That's it...Freshmen and Da Baitches.
 
2012-10-25 04:56:11 PM  

mat catastrophe: You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.


I was talking about the etymology of the word "man"... As in human or mankind.
 
2012-10-25 05:27:26 PM  

mat catastrophe: I don't really have time to explain to you how an entrenched system becomes so pervasive that it remains invisible until steps are taken to remove it.


Oh. I didn't expect a response, cuz I thought you were just trolling. Maybe you still are, it's hard to tell.

Your logic is a bit strange here. The system is so widespread and blatant that you can't tell that it's actually even there? Another possibility is that it's invisible because it doesn't exist.

I like to call this the "They Live" argument, after the Roddy Piper movie. It's like you're saying, "All you need to do is put these glasses on and you'll see the world for what it really is." Except that to the majority of people it seems that you're wrong, so you say, "Well until we work to dismantle the system, we won't know that it's there." That's ridiculous. If the system is that widespread, it should be pretty obvious. At the most, you can claim that we're all in denial, to which I would say evidence is your best bet to get us to admit the truth but...you apparently don't have any because the system is invisible.

This is similar to what men's rights activists say about us living in a fem-centric world. They claim that men can't see it unless they "swallow the red pill" and wake up to the fact that things aren't quite what they seem. The only way to really decide which one is right, if any, is with evidence.

Considering the lack of evidence on both sides, I'm still pretty skeptical.

mat catastrophe: The relative gains of women (or minorities, for that matter) in the last two centuries does not mean that the patriarchy (or racism) is no longer real or that it no longer plays a role in society. People such as yourself like to point to statistical outliers as evidence that "everything is A-OK now" because, say, there's a female governor in South Carolina.


Please don't put words in my mouth. "People such as yourself" means you're assuming an awful lot about me. I don't think that a female governor proves that women are equal to men. I also don't think if women shared exactly 50% (51%?) of the political positions in this country it would prove they were equal anyway. What matters more is how available those opportunities are to women, not how many choose to go into those positions.

Patriarchy is one of those theories that can be used to circularly prove any conclusion that you want it to. A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.

And considering that most of the "proof" of patriarchy that I've seen from people who subscribe to the theory goes something like, "I'm afraid to walk down the street", well...I remain unconvinced. Being paranoid is a mental state, and doesn't prove anything on its own.

Your point about racism really only reinforces what I'm saying. No one argues that racism does not exist. It's ubiquitous in some places and it's pretty easy to spot. So in order to hold that patriarchy is similarly true, you'd have to show that the majority of men and women are as equally blind to patriarchy as white supremacy groups are to racism. That's a pretty tall order.

mat catastrophe: But that is not indicative of society at large and how women deal with a system that still overwhelmingly favors males, which is precisely the reason it is incumbent upon public (and private) bodies to work toward the elimination of these inequalities.


I'd be curious to know in exactly what way society "overwhelmingly" favors men over women. As I see it, there are numerous human rights issues that affect women AND men. I don't hear anyone complaining that young boys are falling behind in school, which is strange since we live in that patriarchy that values men over women....

mat catastrophe: Again, arguing over a term for a first-year university student is a petty squabble in the larger issue of gender equity in American society but it's probably a decent place to start.


I never said that the term freshman should stay the way it is. I only said that if the tables were turned, you wouldn't hear men asking for society to change the term "freshwoman". It's a pretty petty complaint. I mean, you said patriarchy is the system we all live in, but this is the sort of thing you guys have to focus on? If the system was that oppressive, I would think there would be bigger fish to fry. That's all.

mat catastrophe: Oh, and you should know that I am entirely skipping over the abysmally ignorant tripe in your first paragraph, since it was stupid enough to not really warrant any serious thought or reply.


I was being somewhat facetious cause I didn't know if you were serious or not yet.

But the point still stands. If history is really one of patriarchal oppression, it seems rather strange that men were expected to sail off and die by the millions while women were being given the right to vote without so much as having to sign up for the draft even until this day.

It just baffles me that men would create a system to benefit themselves and then forget to benefit themselves. Men must be pretty inept.
 
apv
2012-10-25 05:34:43 PM  
Just got word my student loans come due next month, so I'm not getting a kick
 
2012-10-25 05:44:30 PM  

IrishFarmer: A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.


rubinium.org
 
2012-10-25 07:00:45 PM  

ingineervt: I like "Drop-outs" since half of them are going to do it

/source:
http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/Degre e lessDebt_CYCT_RELEASE.pdf


Not at UNC Chapel Hill.

mat catastrophe: Cerwin3302: Are they dropping the use of woman as well?

You're an idiot.Honest Bender: For fark's sake... Go take a freakin' language class, lady. There is nothing gender specific about the word Freshman. Just because it contains the letters M A and N in that order doesn't mean it's referring to men.

Maybe next time, before you step up in front of the entire country and make an ass out of yourself, you'll take a few minutes to study up on the etymology of the word.

You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.

So, yea. The word has a definite masculine context that has no place in the world today. Sorry, dudes, the patriarchy train is real and it needs to be taken out.

Admittedly, petty squabbles over meaningless language is not the best fight to fight in this arena. There's pay disparity and unequal expectations of work/life balance that figure into the mix, but since politicians are unwilling to address the issue in any meaningful sense, we can amuse ourselves with this sort of issue.


The pay disparity is not as real as NOW would have you believe. If you don't include women who have taken years out of the workforce to raise children, there is no difference in pay. Today's world is hardly a patriarchy. Most college graduates nowadays are women. Someone needs to start standing up for the boys. They've had a target on their back for too long.
 
2012-10-25 07:13:16 PM  

Honest Bender: mat catastrophe: You mean how it means "first year student"? Yea, that is pretty gender non-specific. Except, of course, that it dates from the mid 16th century....when women did not go to school at all.

I was talking about the etymology of the word "man"... As in human or mankind.


I would imagine that's a long, long stretch.

IrishFarmer: Oh. I didn't expect a response, cuz I thought you were just trolling. Maybe you still are, it's hard to tell.


Look, if you're going to discount an opinion as trolling because it's different from yours then I really think you probably can't actually defend your opinion and you know it. It's pretty standard here on fark for that sort of thing to happen.


Your logic is a bit strange here. The system is so widespread and blatant that you can't tell that it's actually even there? Another possibility is that it's invisible because it doesn't exist.


Sure. Except you're not actually pointing out anything useful here. I mean, it's possible gravity does not exist, except that we can see its effects even if we cannot see the actual force at work. The same is true for institutional sexism or racism.


I like to call this the "They Live" argument, after the Roddy Piper movie. It's like you're saying, "All you need to do is put these glasses on and you'll see the world for what it really is." Except that to the majority of people it seems that you're wrong, so you say, "Well until we work to dismantle the system, we won't know that it's there." That's ridiculous. If the system is that widespread, it should be pretty obvious. At the most, you can claim that we're all in denial, to which I would say evidence is your best bet to get us to admit the truth but...you apparently don't have any because the system is invisible.


Here's your problem: You don't know how to construct a proper analogy. In They Live, the protagonist is not delusional - there really is an alien conspiracy running the government, big business, and the media. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your "argument" is flawed. Perhaps you should find a better film to base it on, one that actually hinges on the main character being delusional and seeing something that does not exist.


This is similar to what men's rights activists say about us living in a fem-centric world. They claim that men can't see it unless they "swallow the red pill" and wake up to the fact that things aren't quite what they seem. The only way to really decide which one is right, if any, is with evidence.

Considering the lack of evidence on both sides, I'm still pretty skeptical.


So, wage disparity, attacks on the right to privacy with regard to reproductive rights, and a truly ugly view of rape are all invisible to you? I think they are pretty obvious effects of an invisible system, one so ingrained in the male mindset that it's entirely second nature. These men aren't actively setting out to make women second class citizens, but their policies do exactly that.


Please don't put words in my mouth. "People such as yourself" means you're assuming an awful lot about me. I don't think that a female governor proves that women are equal to men. I also don't think if women shared exactly 50% (51%?) of the political positions in this country it would prove they were equal anyway. What matters more is how available those opportunities are to women, not how many choose to go into those positions.


I can live with that. Forgive my imposition.


Patriarchy is one of those theories that can be used to circularly prove any conclusion that you want it to. A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.


Except the Grand Unified Theory. Of course, we are not talking about theories, we're talking about systems and how they operate. These are different things.


And considering that most of the "proof" of patriarchy that I've seen from people who subscribe to the theory goes something like, "I'm afraid to walk down the street", well...I remain unconvinced. Being paranoid is a mental state, and doesn't prove anything on its own.


Which does not really have anything to do with what we're talking about...but OK. First, there is the sociological concept called the Thomas Theorem (which is a theory that attempts to explain a system, see?) that holds that situations are real in their consequences. In other words, if you want to hold to your walking down the street idea, if a woman feels threatened and avoids a street out of that fear, then her subjective reality makes the street unsafe to her, regardless of its actual safety.

Now, the goal of gender-neutral language (or pay, or whatever) would be to remove any reasonable reasons that someone might continue to have an irrational belief about a system. There will always be a small percentage of the "paranoid", as you say, but it shouldn't constitute a statistically significant portion of the population.

Your point about racism really only reinforces what I'm saying. No one argues that racism does not exist. It's ubiquitous in some places and it's pretty easy to spot. So in order to hold that patriarchy is similarly true, you'd have to show that the majority of men and women are as equally blind to patriarchy as white supremacy groups are to racism. That's a pretty tall order.


The group in power is always blind to the system of control they enjoy the benefits of. Men are blind to patriarchy just as white supremacy groups are to their own racism - perhaps in different ways. It's entirely possible that, as people climb through social and economic classes, they are themselves increasingly blind to the effects of a system that works against them (again, not intentionally but just as a function of how systems operate).


I'd be curious to know in exactly what way society "overwhelmingly" favors men over women. As I see it, there are numerous human rights issues that affect women AND men. I don't hear anyone complaining that young boys are falling behind in school, which is strange since we live in that patriarchy that values men over women....


Sure, there are issues that affect men and women - just as they affect across racial or class lines. But inside these subsets are additional subsets that have their own internal tensions. For instance, across the board American children are falling behind in school - male and female - but female students still lag behind their male counterparts. Again, the goal should be a system that brings all people up to a baseline standard.

I never said that the term freshman should stay the way it is. I only said that if the tables were turned, you wouldn't hear men asking for society to change the term "freshwoman".


Which is the most blatantly sexist thing you've said in this entire conversation. You would absolutely hear men saying that because if the tables were turned, we have to assume the entire social order is changed and a matriarchy existed throughout thousands of years of human social evolution. So, yes, there would be a general hue and cry to alter the language to gender neutral. Saying that "men wouldn't ask for a change like that" is a remarkably sexist comment precisely because it assumes an inherent strength in men that women do not possess.

It's a pretty petty complaint. I mean, you said patriarchy is the system we all live in, but this is the sort of thing you guys have to focus on? If the system was that oppressive, I would think there would be bigger fish to fry. That's all.


Were you not paying attention at the points where I said that this was a petty squabble in the great scheme of things but one that still could and should be addressed?

I was being somewhat facetious cause I didn't know if you were serious or not yet.

Your previous paragraph pretty much states that you were not being facetious.


But the point still stands. If history is really one of patriarchal oppression, it seems rather strange that men were expected to sail off and die by the millions while women were being given the right to vote without so much as having to sign up for the draft even until this day.

It just baffles me that men would create a system to benefit themselves and then forget to benefit themselves. Men must be pretty inept.


First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.

Since women can now serve in combat, feel free to file another brief in your nearest Federal Court.

At any rate, I think you've fallen victim to the blindness you spoke of earlier, since you seem unable to see how men have historically enjoyed a much greater share of the rights and the wealth.
 
2012-10-25 07:16:45 PM  
Oh, and this is also on the main page now....

Nope. No patriarchy at work there.
 
2012-10-25 07:33:20 PM  

Pumpernickel bread:
The pay disparity is not as real as NOW would have you believe. If you don't include women who have taken years out of the workforce to raise children, there is no difference in pay. Today's world is hardly a patriarchy. Most college graduates nowadays are women. Someone needs to start standing up for the boys. They've had a target on their back for too long.


I bet you believe white people are oppressed, too, don't you?
 
2012-10-25 11:44:28 PM  
This isn't The Onion? Or April 1st? I don't know what to say...
 
2012-10-26 12:04:21 AM  
Boys can be Freshmen and the girls can be Freshmeat. I think this is solved and I'm going to get a good night of sleep now.
 
2012-10-26 01:16:26 AM  

mat catastrophe: First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.


That was a major force for civil rights for African Americans.
 
2012-10-26 01:29:13 AM  
"I rited a childish artickle! Everbuddy reed it, pleeze?"
 
2012-10-26 07:34:30 AM  

Fano: mat catastrophe: First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.

That was a major force for civil rights for African Americans.


I think you misunderstood.
 
2012-10-26 10:00:01 AM  
Rutgers has used "first-year student" since at least the mid-90s.
 
2012-10-26 01:05:45 PM  

mat catastrophe: Look, if you're going to discount an opinion as trolling because it's different from yours then I really think you probably can't actually defend your opinion and you know it. It's pretty standard here on fark for that sort of thing to happen.


What? Trolling? Or people not being able to defend their opinions?

mat catastrophe: Sure. Except you're not actually pointing out anything useful here. I mean, it's possible gravity does not exist, except that we can see its effects even if we cannot see the actual force at work. The same is true for institutional sexism or racism.


Mmm. I would disagree. Although institutionalized sexism or racism may not be readily apparent, they're clearly visible if you're looking for it. But then, I'm getting the sense that that's what you meant by "invisible", in which case I was just reading too much into your words.

mat catastrophe: Here's your problem: You don't know how to construct a proper analogy. In They Live, the protagonist is not delusional - there really is an alien conspiracy running the government, big business, and the media. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your "argument" is flawed. Perhaps you should find a better film to base it on, one that actually hinges on the main character being delusional and seeing something that does not exist.


The character in the movie was taken as delusional until he was able to offer irrefutable evidence that he was right. That's precisely what I was trying to get at. I'm not saying you or anyone who espouses the patriarchy...theory or idea or whatever, is delusional. I'm saying that I'm skeptical short of getting any evidence.

mat catastrophe: So, wage disparity, attacks on the right to privacy with regard to reproductive rights, and a truly ugly view of rape are all invisible to you? I think they are pretty obvious effects of an invisible system, one so ingrained in the male mindset that it's entirely second nature. These men aren't actively setting out to make women second class citizens, but their policies do exactly that.


The cause of the wage disparity is debatable, and while the evidence leans towards the choices of women leading to lower wages as accounting for the majority of the gap, I'd grant that it's still possible that sexism is involved. But there's two problems. All this proves is institutionalized sexism which could be caused by any number of factors. Patriarchy CAN explain it, but it has added assumptions along with it that just aren't necessary to explain it in the first place. It's just a more complicated explanation than is necessary.

To show why, consider a converse example. In schools, boys are falling behind in grades. The education system, it could be said, is leaving boys behind. This clearly favors girls over boys. Does this prove that there is a matriarchy? I don't think so. A matriarchy could explain it, but it just has more complexity than is really needed to explain it. I'm tired, and it's the end of the week, so I'm not sure if this is coming out right, but hopefully you see what I'm saying.

I don't think that our society is doing too bad as far as rape goes. It's not that we've gotten it down to an acceptable level (zero), but our perception of rape is mostly...I would say good. That is, every now and again a republican says something dumb, but rape is considered an awful offense in almost every corner of society. The one area we're lacking is in our perception of prison rape of men and women. We dehumanize prisoners so much that we either don't care, or we make a joke out of, prison rape.

mat catastrophe: Which does not really have anything to do with what we're talking about...but OK. First, there is the sociological concept called the Thomas Theorem (which is a theory that attempts to explain a system, see?) that holds that situations are real in their consequences. In other words, if you want to hold to your walking down the street idea, if a woman feels threatened and avoids a street out of that fear, then her subjective reality makes the street unsafe to her, regardless of its actual safety.


I'm not familiar with the theorem, but I'm sensing an immediate problem here. There's a fuzzy distinction between the consequences of "walking down the street", anxiety caused by a patriarchal system, and the consequences of "anxiety in itself". Right now, there's no reasonable distinction between anxiety in itself, which is just feeling anxious because you can't help it, and anxiety caused by a system of oppression. Whence does the anxiety come?

mat catastrophe: Now, the goal of gender-neutral language (or pay, or whatever) would be to remove any reasonable reasons that someone might continue to have an irrational belief about a system. There will always be a small percentage of the "paranoid", as you say, but it shouldn't constitute a statistically significant portion of the population.


There was a woman who owned a house that a real estate (private) developer wanted in order to build some property. He offered her money for the house, but she refused. So the guy went to the city council and asked them to take it via eminent domain. Despite that eminent domain is to be used for public purposes, they gave the property over to the private developer (claiming the increased taxes would benefit the public). The majority of citizens agreed, because they wanted the development as well, and this enabled the city council to essentially break the law and steal this woman's property.

There's a danger involved in allowing a majority to decide what's best in all cases. For one thing, where do you draw the line? The number of women who are deathly afraid of walking down the street for being assaulted are already a small minority. How much smaller should that minority get? Secondly, it fails to account for any other reasonable factors. For instance, it's been well research that women are generally more concerned for their safety relative to men. Taken to the extreme in even a small percentage of women, this could lead to irrational fears of walking down the street or dating or whatever, that would make it look like (based on these fears) women are actually in more danger than men.

I don't know where the balance lies, but as far as violent crimes go, men are much more likely to be the victims of those crimes. Does that balance out against sexual assaults and all of that? I don't know. My point is, however, that anxiety will tend to manifest itself much more in women than men. It's just a biological difference between the sexes. That has to be taken into account when determining how these things count as evidence. Which is sort of a cop out, because doing so means we'd have to rely on experts, but I bring it up only because these are the reasons why I'm skeptical that these count as proof of patriarchy or any of that.

mat catastrophe: The group in power is always blind to the system of control they enjoy the benefits of. Men are blind to patriarchy just as white supremacy groups are to their own racism - perhaps in different ways.


I would disagree, in that I think white supremacists are very much aware that they hate and work against minorities and all of that. They just think it's "good". Now, we may just agree to disagree on this point, I really don't have any proof either way except what I've seen of these groups on the internet and TV so....

mat catastrophe: Sure, there are issues that affect men and women - just as they affect across racial or class lines. But inside these subsets are additional subsets that have their own internal tensions. For instance, across the board American children are falling behind in school - male and female - but female students still lag behind their male counterparts. Again, the goal should be a system that brings all people up to a baseline standard.


I agree with the last statement for sure, but, and I don't have time to find the study right now, I was pretty sure I heard that the failing school standards are hitting boys harder than girls. That is, girls are getting better grades and being set up for college better where they also do better as in get more degrees and get better grades.

mat catastrophe: Which is the most blatantly sexist thing you've said in this entire conversation. You would absolutely hear men saying that because if the tables were turned, we have to assume the entire social order is changed and a matriarchy existed throughout thousands of years of human social evolution. So, yes, there would be a general hue and cry to alter the language to gender neutral. Saying that "men wouldn't ask for a change like that" is a remarkably sexist comment precisely because it assumes an inherent strength in men that women do not possess.


I'm neither confirming nor denying ;), but it's entirely possible that sexist things will come out of my mouth. I've spent a few months researching MRA and various manosphere sites to write about, and I found that after the first two or three months of it, it started really wearing me down and I started to think and talk more like the manosphere writers. For better or worse, but I'm slowly coming off it now that I'm not constantly reading it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say women are weak. But I'll admit I was probably wrong. I think women are upset about words like these because feminism conned them (just my opinion), but it's entirely possible, even probably, that if the tables were turned there would have been a male feminism that came along and the same demands would have been made.

Psychological differences may have made things play out differently, but it's not a difference of strength in the least.

mat catastrophe: Were you not paying attention at the points where I said that this was a petty squabble in the great scheme of things but one that still could and should be addressed?


Apparently not, lol.

I see it now though.

mat catastrophe: First, you're confusing class and gender. Poor men fight wars, not rich ones. Women were not allowed to sign up for the draft because, according to the Supreme Court - the purpose of the draft was to enlist men for combat and since women were disallowed from combat, they could legally be discriminated against with regard to the draft, which seems to be a clear impingement of their right to serve their country (albeit a right I don't think anyone should actually clamor for - "Oh, yes, please! I want to sign up to get shot at!") but as most people believe it should be a right, then there we go.


The point still stands. If the suffragettes didn't also fight for poor men to vote without signing up to be drafted, or if they didn't fight to allow women to be signed up and drafted, what you're saying is that the suffragettes wanted just to be able to vote like the rich men. Poor men be damend, I guess?

It just really doesn't sound any better to me that way.

The point isn't whether people would want to stand up for the right to be sent off to war (who would want that?) the point is they had a chance to stand in solidarity with poor men and say, "If they have responsibilities that go along with voting, we want those same responsibilities" even if it means getting drafted. I just find it strange that they didn't. A taint on the movement even, although I don't disagree with their end goal per se.

mat catastrophe: Since women can now serve in combat, feel free to file another brief in your nearest Federal Court.


Although we won't be drafting troops anytime soon, the fact still stands that under the law women may serve in the military should they so choose, whereas men are compelled (if they want to vote and not go to jail).

I wouldn't care, except to point out that this is exactly not what I would expect under a patriarchy where men are given priority over women. A system which gives women choices and men obligations does not sound like a patriarchy. If it is, then we suck at patriarchying.

mat catastrophe: At any rate, I think you've fallen victim to the blindness you spoke of earlier, since you seem unable to see how men have historically enjoyed a much greater share of the rights and the wealth.


It's possible, I'll grant that.

But based on this conversation I'm just not convinced yet that I'm wrong. What I see is that men and women were treated differently in the past, and all of these rights of men came with some (occasionally) pretty horrific responsibilities that we didn't feel we should put on women. Was that the right or wrong thing to do? I don't know. There's arguments to be made that keeping women safe (from war and violence) is good for society's future because you need more women to birth the next generation, but the problem is you're not going to protect women from the same things that were obligations for men, while then still giving women the same rights that men had to go along with those obligations.

I mean, we have done that in the past few decades with voting and whatnot, but you get my point.

So, doing that stuff could be called a patriarchy I guess, and if women don't want that anymore that's cool too. I would rather be out in the world, risking my life even, and have rights than to give up that autonomy for relative safety. It's understandable. However, I don't think that system was as oppressive as it was made out to be. "outdated" would probably be a better word for it.
 
2012-10-26 04:50:28 PM  

Honest Bender: IrishFarmer: A theory that can be used to prove anything is really just a theory that proves nothing.

[rubinium.org image 381x270]


I know, I know. I'm not proud of my laziness, believe me.
 
Displayed 20 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report