Spacefem.com

Is it better to be male or female?

Because women are people too

Moderators: deanimal, lillerina, Tookie

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby Storage and Disposal » Fri Mar 9, 11:02 2012

I think it's grammatically correct to use them as a pause at this point, and aren't they supposed to be written like . . . this?
Dr. Mung-Mung wrote:He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world.
User avatar
Storage and Disposal
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
 
Posts: 5429
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 5:31 2004

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby drunken dragon » Fri Mar 9, 12:33 2012

^ that and this... use are both correct.
It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous.
Resign yourself to be the fool you are.
User avatar
drunken dragon
I like where this is going.
I like where this is going.
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 18:21 2002
Location: the bar on the sketchy side of town

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby helium » Fri Mar 9, 16:36 2012

Storage and Disposal wrote:I think it's grammatically correct to use them as a pause at this point, and aren't they supposed to be written like . . . this?


I think . . . is generally used to express when you're cutting something out in a quote, like "To be or not to be. . . and suffer slings and arrows, yo."
/offtopic
I've had my share, I'll help you with the pain
You're not alone


:spork: :bomb: BMMhuhwha?
"No, I can't see, fuck-mook! I have no eyes!"
User avatar
helium
I solve my problems with violence
I solve my problems with violence
 
Posts: 6674
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 15:11 2003
Location: bottom of a bottle

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby Butterfly North » Sat Mar 10, 5:39 2012

^In formal english it is, but in colloquial written english you can use to indicate a pause (especially if using a comma would be grammatically incorrect and confusing to the reader). It really irritates some people but I think used sparingly it can be as effective as other non-standard grammatical features.

"And I was like... OMG I can't believe you just said that."
"John had been alone in the desert for three days. Must... find... water."
User avatar
Butterfly North
established
established
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 15:06 2008

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby Storage and Disposal » Sat Mar 10, 13:46 2012

helium wrote:/offtopic

But this new topic is so much better than the original one!
Dr. Mung-Mung wrote:He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world.
User avatar
Storage and Disposal
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
 
Posts: 5429
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 5:31 2004

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby Raze » Tue Apr 3, 10:35 2012

Yuki wrote:men make things hard on themselves...

women choose to be team players. maybe men should learn the same thing?

Lol couldn't have said it better myself, especially since we're talking about this in sociology right now. Women are usually closer and open up to each other much easier while men usually strive for independence.

User avatar
Raze
Monkey Waxer
Monkey Waxer
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 2, 10:00 2011
Location: ಠ_ಠ

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby Aum » Wed Apr 4, 12:36 2012

Raze wrote:
Yuki wrote:men make things hard on themselves...

women choose to be team players. maybe men should learn the same thing?

Lol couldn't have said it better myself, especially since we're talking about this in sociology right now. Women are usually closer and open up to each other much easier while men usually strive for independence.



In permissive settings men and women can take on either of those roles. Men being independent is a social norm, whereas men opening up to one another and being emotionally expressive is taboo because it shows weakness and that's not allowed in the patriarchy.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.
User avatar
Aum
Into The Unknown
Into The Unknown
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby radicalmasculinist » Sat Apr 7, 11:19 2012

Great article which a lot of men will be able to relate to, he needs to get more in touch with his masculine side then he won't feel that way so much.

Dauragon C. Mikado wrote:{{{This post came from a user on another site. THIS IS NOT MY POST!!!!}}}

IS IT BETTER TO BE MALE OR FEMALE?

I'm kind of new to the forum so apologies if this topic has been brought up before. (Sorry this got so long but I have a lot to say on the subject.)

Been growing more and more preoccupied with the love-shy idea that it's simply better to be female than male in almost every way. So much so that I would choose to be female in a heartbeat. This is not to say I'm one of those "women trapped in a man's body" or want a sex change or anything like that. Just that if God let me go back and do everything over again, I would choose to come back as a girl.

I can't see any downside to being female anymore in western society. Women now dominate in schools, occupy over half the jobs, and can still play the traditional roles of wife and mother if they want. They are put on a pedestal by society and treated better in almost every way. The freedoms they take for granted are ones I will never know. For instance: A woman can choose to work or not work; a man has to work. A woman can dress like a woman or like a man; a man has to dress like a man. A woman doing a "man's" job, like computer technician or engineer, is lauded as a pioneer and example of women's progress; a man doing a "woman's" job, like nurse, dancer or model, is ridiculed. A woman under attack is expected to be defended and assisted; a man under attack is expected to "be a man" or to "man up" and not let anyone push him around. If a woman refuses her "responsibilities" of cooking and cleaning in the home, she is liberated and empowered; if a man refuses his "responsibilities" of being the breadwinner, he is a deadbeat. A woman who argues that men have it better is defending her rights; a man who argues that women have it better is a jealous whiner.

Now you would think with all this extra freedom would come extra responsibilities. But women's responsibilities (as caregiver and nurturer) have actually diminished. Yet there has been no corresponding increase in men's freedom at all (except for homosexuals).

At the risk of exaggerating, I believe being born female is like winning the lottery. You get all the special treatment and privileges handed to you, having done nothing to earn it. You are a higher class of human -- regarded as more attractive, more valuable, more deserving of support and compassion than those without breasts. What do you get by being born male? A shorter life expectancy and greater risk of mental illness, suicide, genetic disorders, alcoholism, social isolation, school dropout, incarceration, much longer prison sentences, etc. No wonder parents selecting the sex of their babies now pick female 75% of the time. In this culture, I would absolutely do the same.

Women have problems too but women's problems are seen as crises by society. Just imagine what would happen if all the homeless men you see in big cities were women. Those women would not be homeless for long. There would be an outcry over how society had let them fall through the cracks and massive efforts to get those women off the street. Already, more social programs and shelters exist for women only than for men, even though men probably account for over 90% of the homeless. Similarly, look at all the attention and funding devoted to breast cancer versus prostate cancer. Both kill equal numbers but prostate cancer gets only a fraction of the attention, for no other reason than that all its victims are male. (So, sorry to say this, but as long as most love-shy victims are male, society is really not going to give a crap.)

Now I realize that for a very long time, it was the other way around. Guys had all the rights and freedoms while women could not have a career or even vote. Some feminists would say modern men deserve to suffer for something that happened before they were even born and which they had nothing to do with... just as girls today somehow deserve special treatment because of past injustices which they themselves will never experience. But does this logic make any sense?

All this eats me up inside because I know that with my temperament I would have made a much better woman than a man. My shyness would be perceived as demure and attractive instead of creepy and unconfident. I could show little or no outward interest in the opposite sex without being seen as gay. I could make a small salary and have no car without it reducing my attractiveness one bit. My low self-esteem would elicit compassion instead of revulsion. I could show more interest in art, culture and psychology than in beer, sports and monster truck rallies without my sexuality being questioned. As a virgin, I'd be seen as pure instead of a loser. Even without approaching anyone, I would get lots of practice at social skills because they would approach me. In short, my life would have been a success instead of a failure.

If any girl should read this and disagree, I'd like to say just be grateful you won the lottery when you were born. Be thankful you dodged a bullet. It could've been so much worse, you really have no idea. I would give anything to be you.
radicalmasculinist
Monkey Waxer
Monkey Waxer
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 8:54 2012

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby radicalmasculinist » Sat Apr 7, 11:22 2012

Aum wrote:
Raze wrote:
Yuki wrote:men make things hard on themselves...

women choose to be team players. maybe men should learn the same thing?

Lol couldn't have said it better myself, especially since we're talking about this in sociology right now. Women are usually closer and open up to each other much easier while men usually strive for independence.



In permissive settings men and women can take on either of those roles. Men being independent is a social norm, whereas men opening up to one another and being emotionally expressive is taboo because it shows weakness and that's not allowed in the patriarchy.



That's where the big mistake is in all of this.

For example I've spent the last few years studying emotions and the majority of emotions are what society would consider masculine. Yes, there are some such as sadness, fear etc which are not seen that way but if a man was to be in touch with all his emotions he would be a lot more masculine ( and successful) than the average man.
radicalmasculinist
Monkey Waxer
Monkey Waxer
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 8:54 2012

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby monk » Sat Apr 7, 12:00 2012

please don't double post.

And you're right, men would be more successful and society would run better if it allowed men to express a full range of emotions in public settings. Feminism fully endorses this, both men and women should be free to express their emotions and being overly emotional should never be seen as a sign of "weakness".
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7444
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby drunken dragon » Sat Apr 7, 12:08 2012

Just when I thought this thread was dead.
It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous.
Resign yourself to be the fool you are.
User avatar
drunken dragon
I like where this is going.
I like where this is going.
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 18:21 2002
Location: the bar on the sketchy side of town

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby tbulley » Sun Apr 22, 7:43 2012

I can't see any downside to being female anymore in western society. Women now dominate in schools, occupy over half the jobs, and can still play the traditional roles of wife and mother if they want. They are put on a pedestal by society and treated better in almost every way. The freedoms they take for granted are ones I will never know. For instance: A woman can choose to work or not work; a man has to work. A woman can dress like a woman or like a man; a man has to dress like a man. A woman doing a "man's" job, like computer technician or engineer, is lauded as a pioneer and example of women's progress; a man doing a "woman's" job, like nurse, dancer or model, is ridiculed. A woman under attack is expected to be defended and assisted; a man under attack is expected to "be a man" or to "man up" and not let anyone push him around. If a woman refuses her "responsibilities" of cooking and cleaning in the home, she is liberated and empowered; if a man refuses his "responsibilities" of being the breadwinner, he is a deadbeat. A woman who argues that men have it better is defending her rights; a man who argues that women have it better is a jealous whiner.

By any objective measure, women do have a better life than men do. Our most valuable possession is our life and its quality, and physical freedom. To paraphrase the US declaration of independence that life, liberty and the achievement of inalienable, sovereign human rights. I would say they describe pretty much what we all strive for. Women live a longer life in practically every country, and experience far lower suicide rates than men, again in most countries (suicide – aka my life is not worth living), and men dominate the jail population. By these measures women and better off than men, except the gender equation is not as simple as assessing who gets the best deal without looking deeper.

Now you would think with all this extra freedom would come extra responsibilities. But women's responsibilities (as caregiver and nurturer) have actually diminished. Yet there has been no corresponding increase in men's freedom at all (except for homosexuals).

What exactly are women responsible for? In general we look at the state of world and it appears than men are responsible for just about everything. From the disastrous state of the environment, war and all the misery making weapons they are waged with, to the bulk of scientific discovery and exploration. The only thing women are responsible for is having babies, but what an awesome responsibility this. The biological risk that this has entailed over the few hundred thousand years we have been human, right back to the millions of years and generations that females have risked their life and resources to carry offspring, while men are largely free from what must be the most significantly responsible item of all, Bearing and nurturing the next generation, without which there would be no human race. Is it any wonder that all the peripheral stuff that arises to support the competition between individuals and groups will get pushed to males. Losing males in wars and fighting is far less of an issue than losing women or children. Most men are dispensable, a few good genetic males can impregnate many women, and the lower status ones can keep the lights on for the real job of producing kids. However, its the 21st century and while we might still be driven by the same things, life is far more complicated and political.
At the risk of exaggerating, I believe being born female is like winning the lottery. You get all the special treatment and privileges handed to you, having done nothing to earn it. You are a higher class of human -- regarded as more attractive, more valuable, more deserving of support and compassion than those without breasts. What do you get by being born male? A shorter life expectancy and greater risk of mental illness, suicide, genetic disorders, alcoholism, social isolation, school dropout, incarceration, much longer prison sentences, etc. No wonder parents selecting the sex of their babies now pick female 75% of the time. In this culture, I would absolutely do the same.

Once again all true, however women have a far greater need than men do and while we imagine we are free of our biology, the simple fact that we live at all or strive to stay alive is due to our biology. The fact we fight for our rights and control over our destiny is biology. Women face the issue of other women. Competition and conflict between women is far nastier than women beating up on men, or men beating on men. Its open season for women to attack men in all sorts of loose alliances and in general this provides benefit, but women on women is more subtle and not really subject to open debate, but it still happens and its far more disempowering than the sort of open, clumsy male type behaviour.

Women have problems too but women's problems are seen as crises by society. Just imagine what would happen if all the homeless men you see in big cities were women. Those women would not be homeless for long. There would be an outcry over how society had let them fall through the cracks and massive efforts to get those women off the street. Already, more social programs and shelters exist for women only than for men, even though men probably account for over 90% of the homeless. Similarly, look at all the attention and funding devoted to breast cancer versus prostate cancer. Both kill equal numbers but prostate cancer gets only a fraction of the attention, for no other reason than that all its victims are male. (So, sorry to say this, but as long as most love-shy victims are male, society is really not going to give a crap.)

Again this is correct but look at some more women only issues and understand why their lives are indeed tougher than mens lives.
Women are mostly valued for their appearance, and men by their status and its around appearance that the conflict between women is soul destroying. Men are held largely responsible for driving these issues, but most of the driving and subtle fighting is driven by women. While most men are certainly drawn to womens appearance all the expensive, unhealthy frivolity that goes with it is done by the masses of women who vote with their fet. There are high status males involved in the mix, but most men think 90% of the stuff around fashion and the like is a joke. The issue is the shelf life of our looks. Once past their teen years and especially if they have kids, a womans looks fade fast. Much faster than the things that measure mens value. Men might live shorter lives and be less able to cope with the heat (through suicide), be more likely to be homeless, spend more time in jail but our physical deterioration, though unpleasant due to its very nature, is slower and less of an issue than it is for women.
Our different biology causes another fundamental issue. To get the best spread of genes men need to mate as often as possible because sperm is cheap and plentiful. Women be choosy and ensure their investment in DNA is good, because ova are expensive resources. This means that despite men being attracted to womens looks, men are not choosy and will mate with any available women, thus devaluing the very thing (looks) that women see as valuable. On the other hand, men do get overlooked by women because their status is too low and men of high status are seen to have their pick of the very best looking women, yet men seem very accepting of this rejection in a way quite different to women. Rejection or insulting a womans looks are hanging matters, while men seem to shrug the same insults more easily.
These are general comments about the genders and are based upon evolutionary biology, society bends us into different shapes and political agendas and individual differences means there are plenty of exceptions – but one swallow does not make a summer.

Now I realize that for a very long time, it was the other way around. Guys had all the rights and freedoms while women could not have a career or even vote. Some feminists would say modern men deserve to suffer for something that happened before they were even born and which they had nothing to do with... just as girls today somehow deserve special treatment because of past injustices which they themselves will never experience. But does this logic make any sense?

Only part true, women have been behind most of male behaviour from way back. Males as resources to nurture the offspring. Women carried far greater risk though pregnancy and childbirth in times past, and socially it was acceptable for men to use their greater physical strength to try and balance the more subtle power wielded by women. In the western world at least this is waning and it seems likely than violence by men against women will becomes socially and legally outlawed. The subtle power that women wield over men and even in the conflict with each is far harder to get a handle on and legislate against.

All this eats me up inside because I know that with my temperament I would have made a much better woman than a man. My shyness would be perceived as demure and attractive instead of creepy and unconfident. I could show little or no outward interest in the opposite sex without being seen as gay. I could make a small salary and have no car without it reducing my attractiveness one bit. My low self-esteem would elicit compassion instead of revulsion. I could show more interest in art, culture and psychology than in beer, sports and monster truck rallies without my sexuality being questioned. As a virgin, I'd be seen as pure instead of a loser. Even without approaching anyone, I would get lots of practice at social skills because they would approach me. In short, my life would have been a success instead of a failure

If any girl should read this and disagree, I'd like to say just be grateful you won the lottery when you were born. Be thankful you dodged a bullet. It could've been so much worse, you really have no idea. I would give anything to be you. .

You would have been out of the frying pan into the fire. Men do not make good victims, while women make excellent victims for good reason.
tbulley
established
established
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 7:23 2006

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby drunken dragon » Sun Apr 22, 15:22 2012

Look, another reincarnation of the same troll.
It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous.
Resign yourself to be the fool you are.
User avatar
drunken dragon
I like where this is going.
I like where this is going.
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 18:21 2002
Location: the bar on the sketchy side of town

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby tbulley » Sun Apr 22, 17:18 2012

drunken dragon wrote:Look, another reincarnation of the same troll.


Why do you not just admit that since you are unable to offer anything substantive in response you are resorting to sniping? Your response shows all the characteristics of trolling with the added one of sniping, which most be the lowest form of trolling requiring nothing of any value to do.
tbulley
established
established
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 7:23 2006

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby drunken dragon » Sun Apr 22, 18:54 2012

Hey! You sound exactly like this other guy who typed way too much and then bitched at people for not wanting to dig through all his bullshit to write an equally-long retort to his ridiculous argument. Foe'd. Enjoy your stay, Opinion McWindbag.
It will do you no harm to find yourself ridiculous.
Resign yourself to be the fool you are.
User avatar
drunken dragon
I like where this is going.
I like where this is going.
 
Posts: 1722
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 18:21 2002
Location: the bar on the sketchy side of town

Re: Is it better to be male or female?

Postby lillerina » Mon Apr 23, 5:13 2012

This thread is dead.
If I bang my head against a brick wall five times and get five lumps, why am I surprised when I bang it a sixth time and get a sixth lump?

"Isn't it funny that the only time your race or gender is questioned is when you're not a white man?" - Wanda Sykes
User avatar
lillerina
We are the internet. We are one.
We are the internet. We are one.
 
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jan 9, 8:32 2006
Location: Meppi's Cedar Closet / Narnia

Previous

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron