eggman88888 said:
To boil this discussion down to GST and its implications on razor blades and tampons is over simplification of a much bigger topic and in many ways debases those pushing the point. I can see why someone with strong views on the topic would chose not to engage you in conversation.
vanth brought up the GST thing, I responded to it with an example. I didn't mean for it to become the focus of discussion. But anyhow.
Samadhi said:
Rated E, i didn't miss your point- i just didn't agree at all with it - i don't see the similarities in necessity between the two. One (razors) are used for aesthetics, and one is used to staunch the flow of blood every month. To me, one is a requirement, and the other (tampons, et al) are a necessity.
They are needed in different ways, but i just don't agree that one is needed as much as the other.
I know the two things are different. Different things are different, yes, I get it.
An analogy is where you take two different things, which are similar in some aspect and compare them on the basis of that similar aspect to illustrate an idea or concept. I realise that there are differences between menstruation and shaving, but it was the similarity, the necessity of it, that I was using.
I couldn't care less about the technicalities, the differences in costs, the exceptions to the rule, I don't care if you know a guy who never shaves but holds down a job cleaning the local mall just fine, my analogy was understood by some, and disagreed with by others, I'm fine with that, I expressed my opinion, if you didn't agree then that's great.
BREAKaBEAT said:
Sorry to keep going on, but I also think it kinda strange that self confessed hardcore atheist are feminist...
Like, if you are an atheist, i am assuming you believe there is nothing more to life than living and dying , and that you believe in the process of evolution, which means that evolution, based on our body shapes and physical capabilities has pretty well defined roles, dont you think ? Men = muscular and strong. Women = round and beautiful and weak. If you really were an atheist, why on earth would you believe that women , or half of society could contribute past their means or should past their role ? Seems very silly to me.
Also, I dont use tampons, I use pads. I honestly couldnt think of anything more disgusting than walking around all day with a piece tissue stuffed up my cunt.
Interesting point. Not that I necessarily agree entirely (you'll find out why at the end).
Yes, if you acknowledge evolution then you acknowledge that there are inherent differences between men and women (I am in no way suggesting that vanth or anyone suggested that men and women are the same. What follows is some abstraction on my part).
If someone doesn't take a woman seriously because they assume that they are not as smart because they are a woman, that is not something I condone, but I can attempt to explain why I think it's simply human nature. It's similar to how I can't wear something low cut when I go see a teacher about a bad grade I received... (and I know of women who have admitted to doing things like this).
Mental Schemas (a fancy word for stereotype / generalisations) exist for a reason. It is more suitable to have general ideas and rules to work with in accordance to the outside world than it is to judge every single thing on a case by case basis. For example, humans tend to be afraid of large animals with big teeth, we don't stop and look at a large animal with big teeth in the wild and think "I wonder if this is dangerous", we see the animal and our instincts tell us "that is dangerous, either kill it or get the fuck out of here".
Men need to be identifiable as men and women identifiable as women so that the process of mating and thus reproduction can take place. If you really are intelligent and capable, and a woman, then this will (hopefully) tend to become apparent. But our biologically derived urges will tell us initially that women are not as capable at some tasks as a man. For example, a bear has just appeared over the hill and is approaching the tribe, the tribes who decided to recruit a group of men to fight the bear tended to survive, while the tribes that sent the women over to fight the bear, probably didn't tend to survive. Evolution leads us to where we are now. Masculinity and femininity exist for a reason. If you want to argue with these perceptions and social norms, then go ahead (I certainly don't think "because that's the way it's always been done" is a good excuse for most anything), but I want it to be acknowledged why things are the way they are.
Though Breaka, I think what feminists want is equal rights. Not to be the same biologically etc. So it's not really a contradiction to believe in evolution and to be feminist.
This is basically how I feel:
happyus said:
you cannot have a dichotomy of the sexes and only change the rules for one side.
So, if a feminist wants equal rights, I'm all for that. But if they want equal rights
for women, then I begin to get a bit confused. Doesn't that contradict the very idea of equal rights?
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
