Of course men are competitive in business. They just in general compete in different ways than women. No one has called out women for their behavior, it has only been noted from personal experience.
Why would you think that men's behavior should be part of a discussion of feminism as it pertains to how women compete in the workforce?
In the workplace I'm happier to have a woman boss in general, and happier to work with mostly men. Luckily in my field this is quite common.
You were making it a gendered discussion, so I was comparing.
I don't see it that way, so I'm out because I know this will go nowhere and I don't have the time to waste on that.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
However, it should be said that, although there have been Marxist-feminist critical collectives in literary study, materialist feminists have often been wary of the androcentric bias of Marxism.
it's easy to see the difference between a man from the capitalist class and a man from the working class, but how do you compare a man from the capitalist class and a woman of the working class?
her detractors often adhere to what's called Gynesis (a concerted effort to re-read representations of women in literature, to the extent of researching women's writings over the centuries that have been ignored by those people - usually men, until recently - who construct a literary canon of classic literature, for schools, colleges and the marketplace).
this is one of the solutions presented in the novel "Egalia's Daughters," to unearth past writings of women through history
Women devalued the value of being a stay at home mom.
Anybody-- be he male or she female-- can be nurturing and be a "stay at home" parent. I guess it was wrong (inhumane even) for other "feminists" to criticize other women who stay at home and take care of the kids. it's also wrong to ridicule a "housebound".
In the workplace how a woman will treat another woman can be comical at times. The attacks get very personal, very quick. All in the name of getting a leg up on the competition. Woman, generally, try to get the leg up on men in other ways.
ha! here's one example and analogy at the same time: some women try to make themselves look attractive so that men may do favors for them. like opening doors for them or something
So, the alternatives listed are nonsense, except d which is vague enough to fit anything. a is very marginal, although I guess they exist. b and c is science fiction.
Peace
Dan
some feminists argue that choices b & c have occurred in the pieces of history that was filtered OUT by the male writers of history. do you think it would change the course of feminism if it was undoubtedly proven that b & c existed before (just for the sake of a healthy argument)?
some feminists argue that choices b & c have occurred in the pieces of history that was filtered OUT by the male writers of history. do you think it would change the course of feminism if it was undoubtedly proven that b & c existed before (just for the sake of a healthy argument)?
You mean these ones?
b. A Separate & Exclusive All-Female Society (There exists a all-male society that the females only meet for reproduction, sexual pleasure only occurs between or among people of the same sex)
c. An All-Female World (where males are killed off once their healthy sperm are put in banks)
I'm not sure what you are going for here really. B might have happened up through history somewhat in some places, but widespread seems highly unlikely. Although I guess the old greeks had an ounce of that, in that many saw sex with women for reproduction, but love was purest between men. C are only now at all possible, so any past occurence is impossible.
Why would that "change the course of feminism"? What is the current course of feminism, and what would you perceive as a new course?
You seem to equate feminism with the most extreme and rabid ones. The point of my post was how many different nuances there are, and how hard it is to nail down a definite feminist position. If any of them claim C, well they are out of it. B in limited form perhaps at times and places. But the whole male conspiracy in history writing concealing the true homosexual nature of all people or something is way off. I dont know who says that.
Actually, I have a hard time understanding what you're on to here.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think that women are their own worst enemy in that their is no common definition of feminism, there's no common goal to work towards. Women devalued the value of being a stay at home mom.
In the workplace how a woman will treat another woman can be comical at times. The attacks get very personal, very quick. All in the name of getting a leg up on the competition. Woman, generally, try to get the leg up on men in other ways.
You mean these ones?
Why would that "change the course of feminism"? What is the current course of feminism, and what would you perceive as a new course?
sorry, i rephrase the query: does the past existence of b & c make the purpose of feminists more definite & unified?
You seem to equate feminism with the most extreme and rabid ones. Actually, I have a hard time understanding what you're on to here.
i don't really veiw feminism in a linear and limited sense or in an extreme sense, i just haven't really read anything of a "feminist utopia" in the most concrete description.
Feminisim is the radical notion that women are people.
I like it short and sweet. I guess I'm letter D. In fact, are there people who propose A, B, C, and call themselves feminisits? Division is patriarchical, inclusion is feminisim.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I think that women are their own worst enemy in that their is no common definition of feminism, there's no common goal to work towards. Women devalued the value of being a stay at home mom.
In the workplace how a woman will treat another woman can be comical at times. The attacks get very personal, very quick. All in the name of getting a leg up on the competition. Woman, generally, try to get the leg up on men in other ways.
i took a class on feminist literature and "bad girls." the first book we read was called 'slut' and it was about this very same topic... about how women are doing more to hold each other back than men are. when a women is labeled as a slut, it's rarely by the men, most often by other women. why is that? look at the way women behave in large groups: the backstabbing, gossip, etc. i dont know where gin hangs out at, but i have never in my life known a man who gossipped or held a grudge to 1/10th the degree the average woman i know does.
i took a class on feminist literature and "bad girls." the first book we read was called 'slut' and it was about this very same topic... about how women are doing more to hold each other back than men are. when a women is labeled as a slut, it's rarely by the men, most often by other women. why is that? look at the way women behave in large groups: the backstabbing, gossip, etc. i dont know where gin hangs out at, but i have never in my life known a man who gossipped or held a grudge to 1/10th the degree the average woman i know does.
i think it depends on the culture that you're in.. i know guys here who, though not labelling a particular woman a "slut", would gossip about "undesirable women" in a very parodic kind of way. and the bad thing here is that this creates a division between the "desirable women" (the un-slutty ones) and the "undesirables" because these guys share this gossip to the so-called goody-two shoes girls. in effect, when a woman or women go out without some men with them, they become sort of susceptible to being hit on by sleazy guys.
have you read "The Red Tent" (forgot the author, a Jewish woman)? It's about Jacob's (the Biblical figure who had 2 wives plus 2 concubines) women. Hoiw they're all sisters and how they managed to love Jacob without fighting over him.
that's like a guy's dream isn't it. 4 women to satisfy him without the bitching.
sure it wasn't a jewish man writing under a female pseudonym.
wonder how it would be taken if i wrote a book about a woman who had 4 men to satiate her needs.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i dont know where gin hangs out at, but i have never in my life known a man who gossipped or held a grudge to 1/10th the degree the average woman i know does.
Well maybe it's because I live and work in NYC, the center of the universe, the place where everyone is.
Although that can't really be the reason. I've worked in another large city and had a boss who would just gossip with people/and about people. Ah just last week I was in a meeting with an executive here and I was trying to talk business and he said, 'hey you want some gossip? so and so are sleeping with each other!' I don't give a shit!
And the large groups of women I know, both at work and otherwise, are very supportive. Maybe it's just that I know all of the fabulous people?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
it's easy to see the difference between a man from the capitalist class and a man from the working class, but how do you compare a man from the capitalist class and a woman of the working class?
Have you read "The Second Sex", by Simone de Beauvoir? It's well worth reading. It deals with many, many topics - it's a great work - but it does discuss, in part, the problematic relationship between feminism and Marxism.
Have you read "The Second Sex", by Simone de Beauvoir? It's well worth reading. It deals with many, many topics - it's a great work - but it does discuss, in part, the problematic relationship between feminism and Marxism.
haven't yet.. but i've heard of it. that book's one of the books in my "books to read" list
that's like a guy's dream isn't it. 4 women to satisfy him without the bitching.
sure it wasn't a jewish man writing under a female pseudonym.
wonder how it would be taken if i wrote a book about a woman who had 4 men to satiate her needs.
no, the writer wasn't a jewish man under a female pseudonym because her picture is on the back cover of the book. but the story is not about the 4 women satisfying Jacob, it's about the relationship among these four... how they have this red tend keeps out the men when they're having their "moon-blood".
this novel had me started with my problem with femisnism... that women may choose to isolate themselves from men, even if it's just once a month.
sorry, i rephrase the query: does the past existence of b & c make the purpose of feminists more definite & unified?
i don't really veiw feminism in a linear and limited sense or in an extreme sense, i just haven't really read anything of a "feminist utopia" in the most concrete description.
Feminists have little in the way of a unified purpose, other than making women more equal to men. I dont see how any of those scenarios existing in the past changes any of that. Our interpretation of history is based on today anyway.
And in extension, I dont think a feminist "utopia" really exists. It would perhaps be a truly equal society for the sexes. As said before, there are as many feminisms as there are feminists. The general goal is equality.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I dont think a feminist "utopia" really exists. It would perhaps be a truly equal society for the sexes. As said before, there are as many feminisms as there are feminists. The general goal is equality.
yeah, i know the utopia doesn't exist, nor would we want it to exist in the future, but some of the so-called feminists amaze me because they have this twisted notion about what their feminist utopia. much like choices b & c.
one reason i posted the thread was that some feminists i know wouldn't want me in their group because i'm not radical enough.
yeah, i know the utopia doesn't exist, nor would we want it to exist in the future, but some of the so-called feminists amaze me because they have this twisted notion about what their feminist utopia. much like choices b & c.
one reason i posted the thread was that some feminists i know wouldn't want me in their group because i'm not radical enough.
Well, then they're stuck-up intellectual snobs you should be better off without. If they have opinions like b and c then they are wacked out radicals with no sense of reality. Dont let those maniacs give feminism a bad name for you.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
You were making it a gendered discussion, so I was comparing.
I don't see it that way, so I'm out because I know this will go nowhere and I don't have the time to waste on that.
cross the river to the eastside
it's easy to see the difference between a man from the capitalist class and a man from the working class, but how do you compare a man from the capitalist class and a woman of the working class?
this is one of the solutions presented in the novel "Egalia's Daughters," to unearth past writings of women through history
Anybody-- be he male or she female-- can be nurturing and be a "stay at home" parent. I guess it was wrong (inhumane even) for other "feminists" to criticize other women who stay at home and take care of the kids. it's also wrong to ridicule a "housebound".
ha! here's one example and analogy at the same time: some women try to make themselves look attractive so that men may do favors for them. like opening doors for them or something
I'm not sure what you are going for here really. B might have happened up through history somewhat in some places, but widespread seems highly unlikely. Although I guess the old greeks had an ounce of that, in that many saw sex with women for reproduction, but love was purest between men. C are only now at all possible, so any past occurence is impossible.
Why would that "change the course of feminism"? What is the current course of feminism, and what would you perceive as a new course?
You seem to equate feminism with the most extreme and rabid ones. The point of my post was how many different nuances there are, and how hard it is to nail down a definite feminist position. If any of them claim C, well they are out of it. B in limited form perhaps at times and places. But the whole male conspiracy in history writing concealing the true homosexual nature of all people or something is way off. I dont know who says that.
Actually, I have a hard time understanding what you're on to here.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That's exactly what I meant.
sorry, i rephrase the query: does the past existence of b & c make the purpose of feminists more definite & unified?
i don't really veiw feminism in a linear and limited sense or in an extreme sense, i just haven't really read anything of a "feminist utopia" in the most concrete description.
I like it short and sweet. I guess I'm letter D. In fact, are there people who propose A, B, C, and call themselves feminisits? Division is patriarchical, inclusion is feminisim.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
i took a class on feminist literature and "bad girls." the first book we read was called 'slut' and it was about this very same topic... about how women are doing more to hold each other back than men are. when a women is labeled as a slut, it's rarely by the men, most often by other women. why is that? look at the way women behave in large groups: the backstabbing, gossip, etc. i dont know where gin hangs out at, but i have never in my life known a man who gossipped or held a grudge to 1/10th the degree the average woman i know does.
i think it depends on the culture that you're in.. i know guys here who, though not labelling a particular woman a "slut", would gossip about "undesirable women" in a very parodic kind of way. and the bad thing here is that this creates a division between the "desirable women" (the un-slutty ones) and the "undesirables" because these guys share this gossip to the so-called goody-two shoes girls. in effect, when a woman or women go out without some men with them, they become sort of susceptible to being hit on by sleazy guys.
that's like a guy's dream isn't it. 4 women to satisfy him without the bitching.
sure it wasn't a jewish man writing under a female pseudonym.
wonder how it would be taken if i wrote a book about a woman who had 4 men to satiate her needs.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well maybe it's because I live and work in NYC, the center of the universe, the place where everyone is.
Although that can't really be the reason. I've worked in another large city and had a boss who would just gossip with people/and about people. Ah just last week I was in a meeting with an executive here and I was trying to talk business and he said, 'hey you want some gossip? so and so are sleeping with each other!' I don't give a shit!
And the large groups of women I know, both at work and otherwise, are very supportive. Maybe it's just that I know all of the fabulous people?
cross the river to the eastside
Have you read "The Second Sex", by Simone de Beauvoir? It's well worth reading. It deals with many, many topics - it's a great work - but it does discuss, in part, the problematic relationship between feminism and Marxism.
this novel had me started with my problem with femisnism... that women may choose to isolate themselves from men, even if it's just once a month.
Feminists have little in the way of a unified purpose, other than making women more equal to men. I dont see how any of those scenarios existing in the past changes any of that. Our interpretation of history is based on today anyway.
And in extension, I dont think a feminist "utopia" really exists. It would perhaps be a truly equal society for the sexes. As said before, there are as many feminisms as there are feminists. The general goal is equality.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
one reason i posted the thread was that some feminists i know wouldn't want me in their group because i'm not radical enough.
Well, then they're stuck-up intellectual snobs you should be better off without. If they have opinions like b and c then they are wacked out radicals with no sense of reality. Dont let those maniacs give feminism a bad name for you.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Answer: Two. one to change the lightbulb and one to suck my d>{~@>ck!!