I also think you credit feminist activists with developments that are better credited to penicillin, condoms, and modern medicine. Let’s be clear, women’s liberation happened because of the washing machine and World War 2. That is, it is only because of technological improvements (washer, dryer, microwave, vacuum cleaner, etc.) that housework became less than a full time job.
By denying biology, feminism has brought much unhappiness to both women and men by persuading (most) women to act like men and (many) men to act like women (though women, overall, have gotten a far worse deal).
One can make an accomodation between biology and modernity, but not if you deny biology. I mean, sure, there are some androgen cases who really are happier going to toe-to-toe with men who are ready and willing to put in 100 hours a week. But they are not very common.
There are tons of possible recommendations one could make for our civilization given the current genetic constraints on male/female behavior. But our current genetic constraints will not be constraints for long, so social engineering can run hand in hand with genetic engineering. Welcome to a world of 36-24-36 nurturing and faithful nymphomaniacs, and 6’3? broad shouldered providers.
32 comments
"Welcome to a world of 36-24-36 nurturing and faithful nymphomaniacs, and 6’3? broad shouldered providers."
That world seem new and brave.
Meanwhile in reality, indentifiably modern washing machines didn't become common until the early 20th century when women's rights movements were well underway. World War II just accelerated the process by forcing women to work in the factories while all the men were at war, so yes, you can credit WWII.
By denying biology, feminism has brought much unhappiness to both women and men by persuading (most) women to act like men and (many) men to act like women (though women, overall, have gotten a far worse deal).
To me (as a guy) it seems more preferable to the previous system of subjugating women on the sole basis of their sex. And also as a guy, I don't have to be some manly hulk. Seems like you'd get more unhappiness if you followed human biology.
Welcome to a world of 36-24-36 nurturing and faithful nymphomaniacs, and 6’3? broad shouldered providers.
Sounds like you've been reading too much hentai.
Yeah, you "think" when actually you don't. Your ideas about women are just a continuation of current thinking. No new ideas, no fresh concepts, all with the defense of it's all "biology." It sounds like the crap we used to get defending Jim Crow in the South.
Next time, at least develop a better defence of your misogyny.
it is only because of technological improvements (washer, dryer, microwave, vacuum cleaner, etc.) that housework became less than a full time job.
If you think that modern conveniences makes housework less than a full time job, you've obviously never done much housework. Add a couple of small children on top of that and day is pretty much taken up.
Feminism existed long before the washing machine or World War 2, by which time women had had equal suffrage in the United States for 21 years. As for women putting in 100 hours a week, they seem rather more common than men. And I suggest you keep your fantasies to yourself.
biology doesn't tell you how to live, only that you should . (if even that much.) figuring out what makes you happy is up to you; if retreating into a fantasy world where every woman is a hot nympho is what works for you, well and good, just leave the rest of us out of your wanking material.
It's interesting you mention WWII, because if not for all those Rosie the Riveters working in the shipyards, steelworks, aircraft/tank/vehicle assembly lines, munition factories etc - putting more than just '100 hours a week in' - you most probably wouldn't exist today.
Fact: In 1914, a certain Emmeline Pankhurst was the most vociferous in urging men to fight in WWI; more so, when it cam to women even then working in the munitions factories.
After the Great War, the men in government then had no choice but to realise the vital contribution said women had made to their nation's victory, that they had no alternative but to give women the vote.
It took a war for Ms Pankhurst et al to win theirs .
She ultimately became an MP, becoming the first woman to ernter that previously patriarchal Parliament.
The rest is history.
Moral: If you deny biology - the fact that the only difference is Chromosomal, then if not for Rosie the Riveter in WWII, you'd most probably be history.
The Seneca Falls Convention disagrees with you. Also women shifted over to work in the factories happened in WW1, but like most casual readers of history, treating WW1 like it doesn't matter is common. Though WW1 in Europe mostly propelled men with no property to voting rights (In Britain the concession to women was if you were 35+ and owned property, you could vote), rather than providing great catalyst to all female voting rights.
Also out of all animals, humans have one of the LEAST differences between men and women. So biology argument is rather flat to even someone who casually have looked through a large variety of animals (Which have diverse care taking situations).
"Welcome to a world of 36-24-36 nurturing and faithful nymphomaniacs, and 6’3? broad shouldered providers. "
You forgot the part where they have penises too.
This is the worst kind of fundamentalism. "You think you're happy but you're not! This is for your own good!" Who are you to decide who's happy and who isn't? You sound like an abusive parent.
Also, who works 100 hours a week? Where do you live that that's normal? Or do you think that's what *should* happen?
Women's liberation has been a hard fought struggle from long before World War II, try World War I for a definite concerted effort for Female suffrage. But women have been involved in politics long before the twentieth Century. Elizabeth Heyrick in the early 19th Century for example campaigned tirelessly for the Emancipation of slaves in England by using petitions writing pamphlets and speaking in public despite not having the vote.
@Captainzens
Women have been working in factories since the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Many worked for the mills in Lancashire like Quarry Bank and Ancoats. As well as children for that matter. Read Faucher, L. (1969 [1844]) Manchester in 1844: Its Present Condition and Future Prospects, which show concerns to the morality of 'factory girls' who 'are strangers to Modesty. There language gross and often obscene...' as they were allowed to mix with there male counterparts including cavorting outside 'in the back streets' and mixing with each other in the 'beer-shops'.
*Welcome to a world of 36-24-36 nurturing and faithful nymphomaniacs, and 6’3? broad shouldered providers*
He says that like it's a bad thing...
Prosthetic exoskeletons are being tested now; get ready for XY v. XX to be irrelevant in yet more professions.
100 hrs a week could easily be the work load of a stay-at-home mom, gc couldn't handle it.
It is only because of commercial improvements (like slaughterhouses, supermarkets, and McDonald's) that hunting for food became less than a full time job.
Wait, what was your point again? Oh. That Bobby Riggs crap. Never mind.
If it weren't for those women in WWII, you would be speaking German & worshiping Hitler as a god....or dead.
Be thankful you're not a praying mantis or anglerfish.
Come again? Sure, women's liberation was fueled by household appliances and working during WWII when the men were off killing each other, but it began quite a few decades before that.
Honey, feminism IS women and men, it's not a separate entity that persuades innocents to do this, that or the other. It's people literally dying to do those things, to have the same rights as men (and women), to be able to own property of their own, to not be forced to quit working when you get married, etc. The persuasion all happened BEFORE feminism began; persuading all women to have kids and run a household.
Genetic constraints on male/female behavior? Women are just as genetically prepared to earn money, to carry children around all day, to cook and clean and to work in the industry. I do work in production industry, and I'd say that cleaners have a harder time than industrial workers. There are few overhead cranes and fork-lift trucks in people's homes.
@whiteylad
I know women have worked in factories all over the world for ages, as well in agricultural and gatherer societies for even longer. But more pointing out relation to war time economies.
@frank
So not too long. I didn't think it was long, but didn't have dates handy.
Can misogynists like you stop embarrassing the transhumanist movement with your uninformed drivel about genetic engineering? Firstly, genetic engineering does not work that way and secondly, transhumanism is about using science and technology to become something more than human, not satisfying your sexual fantasies.
I'd take a shot at the rest of your argument but to be honest the rest of the commentators have covered that pretty thoroughly.
Don't respond to nonsense with more nonsense. A 100 hour work week would be waking up, working for 14-15 hours, having an hour to take care of yourself, then going to sleep then doing it again every single day. I doubt even Rosie the Riveter did that.
@nazani14
"Prosthetic exoskeletons are being tested now; get ready for XY v. XX to be irrelevant in yet more professions."
(*Thinks of Sigourney Weaver - in THAT scene in "Aliens" - as Ellen Ripley in ultra-Mama Bear mode, in THAT Powerloader: and extremely pissed off. *)
Stop it, you're turning me on.
'Get away from her, you BITCH! '
...oh, and 'Prosthetic exoskeletons are being tested now; get ready for XY v. XX', you say?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_of_Tomorrow_(film)#Battle_suit_design
'Production designer Oliver Scholl and his team worked with lead builder Pierre Bohanna to develop concept art for several battle suit options based on contemporary real-world powered exoskeleton initiatives like those supported by DARPA. '
(For more details on this topic, see powered exoskeleton. )
Emily Blunt - Rita - in "Edge of Tomorrow" (a.k.a. "All You Need Is Kill") in that Battlesuit. Your argument is valid .
But our current genetic constraints will not be constraints for long, so social engineering can run hand in hand with genetic engineering.
Oh, I get it. gc is worried that he's becoming obsolete.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.