I think you're quite sexist. I persnally think men are better in control of maintaining the world myself and that it wouldn't be so easily maintained or progressed due to not being maintined very well.
I would go on and on as to why, but judgey bitch explains why I believe so: http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
Men do and choose to do so much of the work we rely on to maintain at this level of civilization, however in comparison with he jobs women choose, you can't really say the same.
The work we rely on to maintain this level of civilization will be our detriment. This is not a good thing. Just because we can, just because we are willing, doesn't mean we should.
Although calling the modern world a high level of civilization is debatable.
You're forgetting an essential piece of history, dear friend - World War II, the time when nearly 50% of labor duties were taken on by women. Just because women don't do the bulk of the work doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable. It is true that most women weren't blessed with the natural physical strength of men, but all that means is that they must be willing to work harder for such strength. The willpower to do so is not gender specific.
Furthermore, women are discouraged from pursuing labor occupations by society. I think if it weren't so taboo for a woman to do physical labor (if women were portrayed in movies, commercials, ads, etc.. as construction workers rather than as make-up models) that is what more women would conform to. I work a somewhat laborious job myself and sometimes I feel like I probably look dirty and undesirable to society because of it, but despite this notion embedded deep in my mind through years of conditioning I truly enjoy the physicality of my work and would like to become stronger so I can do better.
I admire the strength of men and I appreciate the labor they do for society as a whole. I think there are many opportunities for those who possess a masculine strength; it is far easier for a man with muscles to find work than a woman with smarts, but women are told to be smart while men are told to be strong. For a woman to do the opposite is simply discouraged by mainstream media. But it is my belief that if a woman wants to mine coals there is no reason why she cannot train herself to be able to do so at the same level as a man, she would just have to work harder to get to that point. Of course, the average man (strenghwise) is equal to the superior woman, but either way the job would get done.
Reminds me of a GirlWritesWhat video. Yes, women did do that, however it was not to the same satisfaction as the male equivilent nor was it the harder jobs, it was the easier jobs, such as shoveling coal, and so on. A lot of the work didn't even involve the things men previously done before women were needed to help, like you explained with the less than 50% of work part.
That being said, if willpower is not gender specific, then why are women not doing those roles now mentioned in what "Judgybitch" mentioned? You also forget that not all of those jobs hold physical labour need, such as piloting.
Women are discouraged? By who? Where does society shun women for doing this? I must of walked past the posters. If anything, in today's society, women are encouraged to do all work, science, math, engineering, and all sorts of male dominated fielfs, but would still prefer learning other skills and persue different knowledge. Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from science and math for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, especially science, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism.
Your arguement about women being portrayed in media somehow motivates them to distance themselves from those areas are ridiculous, by that you can then imply that society encourages men to be terrorists, villains, bad guys, criminals, and so on simply because more of those characters are male. If that's also the case, society is trying to encourage men to be stupid, clumsy oafs with the amount of advertisements and media outlets depicting men as such.
I think the whole "society doesn't allow me to" excuse is just that; an excuse. It could be used for nearly, if not all issues on how we differ from men and women.
The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
Women choose easier jobs because they know their capabilities(or lack of) so they wouldn't try and make a fool out of themselves. Their image and reputation is more important to them than their curiosity to explore the unknown.
"A woman wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. She embarrassed herself by not pleasing her man. And women know it."
Is it normal i think it would be a disaster if women ruled the world?
← View full post
I think you're quite sexist. I persnally think men are better in control of maintaining the world myself and that it wouldn't be so easily maintained or progressed due to not being maintined very well.
I would go on and on as to why, but judgey bitch explains why I believe so: http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/
Men do and choose to do so much of the work we rely on to maintain at this level of civilization, however in comparison with he jobs women choose, you can't really say the same.
--
gorillaphant
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Freedom_
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Anonymous Post Author
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-4
-4
The work we rely on to maintain this level of civilization will be our detriment. This is not a good thing. Just because we can, just because we are willing, doesn't mean we should.
Although calling the modern world a high level of civilization is debatable.
You're forgetting an essential piece of history, dear friend - World War II, the time when nearly 50% of labor duties were taken on by women. Just because women don't do the bulk of the work doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable. It is true that most women weren't blessed with the natural physical strength of men, but all that means is that they must be willing to work harder for such strength. The willpower to do so is not gender specific.
Furthermore, women are discouraged from pursuing labor occupations by society. I think if it weren't so taboo for a woman to do physical labor (if women were portrayed in movies, commercials, ads, etc.. as construction workers rather than as make-up models) that is what more women would conform to. I work a somewhat laborious job myself and sometimes I feel like I probably look dirty and undesirable to society because of it, but despite this notion embedded deep in my mind through years of conditioning I truly enjoy the physicality of my work and would like to become stronger so I can do better.
I admire the strength of men and I appreciate the labor they do for society as a whole. I think there are many opportunities for those who possess a masculine strength; it is far easier for a man with muscles to find work than a woman with smarts, but women are told to be smart while men are told to be strong. For a woman to do the opposite is simply discouraged by mainstream media. But it is my belief that if a woman wants to mine coals there is no reason why she cannot train herself to be able to do so at the same level as a man, she would just have to work harder to get to that point. Of course, the average man (strenghwise) is equal to the superior woman, but either way the job would get done.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Reminds me of a GirlWritesWhat video. Yes, women did do that, however it was not to the same satisfaction as the male equivilent nor was it the harder jobs, it was the easier jobs, such as shoveling coal, and so on. A lot of the work didn't even involve the things men previously done before women were needed to help, like you explained with the less than 50% of work part.
That being said, if willpower is not gender specific, then why are women not doing those roles now mentioned in what "Judgybitch" mentioned? You also forget that not all of those jobs hold physical labour need, such as piloting.
Women are discouraged? By who? Where does society shun women for doing this? I must of walked past the posters. If anything, in today's society, women are encouraged to do all work, science, math, engineering, and all sorts of male dominated fielfs, but would still prefer learning other skills and persue different knowledge. Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from science and math for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, especially science, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism.
Your arguement about women being portrayed in media somehow motivates them to distance themselves from those areas are ridiculous, by that you can then imply that society encourages men to be terrorists, villains, bad guys, criminals, and so on simply because more of those characters are male. If that's also the case, society is trying to encourage men to be stupid, clumsy oafs with the amount of advertisements and media outlets depicting men as such.
I think the whole "society doesn't allow me to" excuse is just that; an excuse. It could be used for nearly, if not all issues on how we differ from men and women.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The prevailing macho culture of the people within STEM fields discourages many women from the start. Since you're not a person in a STEM field, I wouldn't expect you to know that.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I took an animal care course which is female dominated. There is a "fem culture" within that field discouraging men from the start. Since you're not a person in that field, I don't expect you to know that.
How are women being discouraged from society in those fields? Why is a "macho" culture existing if it is true? Did you consider the reason why it's like that is because an overwhelming majority of people working to gain entry in those fields and so gain position in those fields are male? The same could be said about nurses, could it not, simply in the reverse of a "macho culture"?
Explain your point. You and I both know I don't work with statements alone.
--
dom180
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Reminds me of an article in the newspaper I seen about a month or less ago about how women are shying away from SCIENCE AND MATH for English and the arts, and like I said, with how women are encouraged in to education by society, ESPECIALLY SCIENCE, yet they still shy away from it, shows me that they just aren't interested nor willing. It's sexual dimorphism."
^^ The topic was STEM fields. That's why I only talked about STEM fields.
I see. You think I was generalising from STEM to all subjects. I wasn't, I was just explaining why women are discouraged from STEM specifically i.e. effort attempting to get women more interested in STEM fields is going against the tide that exists within those fields. It isn't because women are just naturally uninterested in natural science. 90% of the people in engineering lectures at my university are men.
I understand there is such a thing as female-majority and female-dominated fields, and that there are cultural and subcultural discourses that discourage men from taking part in them. I am in one field myself - the social sciences. Only 10% of the students in my lectures are men.
I specifically said *from the start*. That is, the macho culture discourages women from working to get into STEM fields *in the first place*.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
You've still not explained how they do so, which is what I was primarily getting at.
Women choose easier jobs because they know their capabilities(or lack of) so they wouldn't try and make a fool out of themselves. Their image and reputation is more important to them than their curiosity to explore the unknown.
"A woman wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. She embarrassed herself by not pleasing her man. And women know it."
--
disthing
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You have a distorted view of women.
Have you ever spoken to any real life women?
Because, if the impression you get is that they all have greatly limited capabilities and only care about their reputations, you need to get out more.
Can't say I really agree with you on this.