Feminism

[garbon]

I entirely agree, it basically is the argument against gay adoption.  My dad had gone from a very poor area of Liverpool to being in the merchant navy for 30-40 years - so he was from probably the most masculine of backgrounds but for a number of practical reasons he was the man who raised my little brother (and to a lesser extent me) while my mum worked.  He was as able to be a caregiver and as good at that as other people's mums seemed to be.

Yeah, I think the same of my father staying at home with my siblings and I.

That book sounds interesting - I'll have to check it out.

[derspiess]

Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

I would totally argue this. Men may not be equipped to breast feed, but otherwise, there's no reason that men couldn't or shouldn't stay home with the children if that's what they choose.

The thing is, when it comes to equality, everyone should have the right to decide for themselves - without fear of judgment - what works for them. I hate that there are men who would make the better stay-at-home parent who choose not to because they feel like they'd be judged harshly if they did. That's sad, and wrong, imo.

I agree with both you and Berkut here.  You did not actually refute anything he said.

[Berkut]

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women

Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

I don't agree with that at all.

There are a lot of variables that go into evaluating the fitness of people as parents, gay or otherwise. More than enough that the tendencies of gender are largely irrelevant in general, and certainly irrelevant in the particular.

[Berkut]

Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

I would totally argue this. Men may not be equipped to breast feed, but otherwise, there's no reason that men couldn't or shouldn't stay home with the children if that's what they choose.

Who are you arguing with?

I never said they should not if they choose, nor did I say they would not be capable, if they so chose to do so.

The thing is, when it comes to equality, everyone should have the right to decide for themselves - without fear of judgment - what works for them. I hate that there are men who would make the better stay-at-home parent who choose not to because they feel like they'd be judged harshly if they did. That's sad, and wrong, imo.

The three of you are in violent agreement that you have thoroughly denounced the strawman you have created. Congratulations.

[Berkut]

Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

I entirely agree, it basically is the argument against gay adoption.  My dad had gone from a very poor area of Liverpool to being in the merchant navy for 30-40 years - so he was from probably the most masculine of backgrounds but for a number of practical reasons he was the man who raised my little brother (and to a lesser extent me) while my mum worked.  He was as able to be a caregiver and as good at that as other people's mums seemed to be.

Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

[Valmy]

Having said that I love feminism and inwardly cringe when I see women distancing themselves from it, because I think the fight's still essential and unwon.

Ok I have alot of things to say to this sentence but here are a few points.

First yes the fight is still essential and unwon.  But I think a tipping point has been reached and a gender equal society is coming, maybe not as quick as alot of us would like but with vigilance and hard work I think we are on the right track.

Secondly are women really distancing themselves from feminism?  It was never like it was a majority thing among women.

But I think Feminism does have some problems, they are hardly unique to Feminism though and basically all movements of this kind have these issues.  A big one is that, despite the fact I have taken classes and read books and articles on the subject, I am not sure what exactly Feminism is and I do not think anybody else does either.  It is a huge mass of different agendas that are often directly contradictory towards one another.  If I were to announce that I, Valmy, am a Feminist what that probably means to me would mean something different to each person I was announcing it to.  Nevermind the big controversy as to whether a man could even be a Feminist...which is sort of ridiculous if you consider it simply the idea that men and women are equal.  And of course, again like most movements of this type, fanatics and crazies are out front in center and have a disproportionate impact with regard to their numbers.  But in general these issues are not a huge deal, the good ideas of feminism are seeping into the culture.  The primary impact is the majority of women are probably never going to eagerly embrace the title of Feminist unless it is a very watered down definition.

Every time I read a piece about Adele showing it doesn't matter what you look like I want to scream.  It makes her sound like some sort of monstrous swamp-beast when in fact she is, to my eyes, a slightly larger but relatively pretty girl.

LOL.  Yeah we are all supposed to be inspired and she is this big role model to women everywhere for making it despite being horribly ugly.

[The Brain]

despite the fact I have taken classes and read books and articles on the subject,

WTF

[MadImmortalMan]

LOL.  Yeah we are all supposed to be inspired and she is this big role model to women everywhere for making it despite being horribly ugly.

I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

[The Brain]

Aretha and Adele would both have been much bigger had they been HOTT.

[garbon]

Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Can you reiterate what you meant then? I don't think that the 3 of us purposefully misread what you said - so it must have been unclear to us.

[dps]

Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Can you reiterate what you meant then? I don't think that the 3 of us purposefully misread what you said - so it must have been unclear to us.

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

[garbon]

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

[dps]

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

[merithyn]

I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

And Aretha was a pretty woman when she was younger. She just got big, and so no one sees that anymore.

Adele


Aretha Franklin

[merithyn]

Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Then we're obviously missing your point. Care to rephrase so that we're a little more clear on what it is?