|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| The Gipkik wrote: |
I never said dressing in a sexy way empowered ALL women--for some, it would be quite foolish. And generalizing that men are the real power holders and many Western nations (I assume this is what you were talking about, but if it's Korea, then, yes, we're talking Patriarchy) are still patriarchical is too simplistic. This needs defense beyond gender stereotyping and biological determinism. And major revolution for what? Where? And really, why? |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
Memo to:
Nancy Pelosi, Condeleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginnsberg, and Barbara Boxer;
none of you count as world leaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| The Gipkik wrote: |
I never said dressing in a sexy way empowered ALL women--for some, it would be quite foolish. And generalizing that men are the real power holders and many Western nations (I assume this is what you were talking about, but if it's Korea, then, yes, we're talking Patriarchy) are still patriarchical is too simplistic. This needs defense beyond gender stereotyping and biological determinism. And major revolution for what? Where? And really, why? |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
Memo to:
Nancy Pelosi, Condeleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginnsberg, and Barbara Boxer;
none of you count as world leaders. |
Oh for the love of- count them! Is the representation 50:50- no! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
Can't agree. This is a tired argument. Men are CEO's in many cases because they are more ruthless and because of genetic determinism-they are often less empathetic and compassionate and are willing to sacrifice their personal lives to get things done. And positing an argument that because the majority of CEO's and world leaders are men, it follows that most countries are patriarchies is based on a belief that the majority of a country's laws side with men. In many less developed countries, they do, but not in many advanced societies.
And to be treated equally is a meaningless phrase. The only way a woman or a man will be treated equally is if he/she gets a sex change in some cases or is just very good looking--or sometimes not very good looking. There are so many variables beyond gender that are at play here. In fact, many laws side with women--marriage laws, divorce laws, family laws. I don't see women shouting for a revolution there. It's all about personal advantage--either for men or for women. And unless you want corporations to radically change, I don't see the majority of CEO's becoming women anytime soon at all. However, a revolution is in need. But this one goes beyond gender constructs, and that is a revolution against our insatiable need for finite resources and money as the controlling influences in our lives. LOL, I don't see this happening without some kind of world catastrophe coming first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
Men are CEO's in many cases because they are more ruthless and because of genetic determinism-
|
Finally, someone has unravelled the mysteries of human genetics and can explain how heredity determines behaviour. I look forward to reading all forthcoming proof.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
And to be treated equally is a meaningless phrase. The only way a woman or a man will be treated equally is if he/she gets a sex change in some cases or is just very good looking- |
Yeah, that would be the whole point of this feminist thing we have going.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| And unless you want corporations to radically change.... |
I sure do!
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| However, a revolution is in need. But this one goes beyond gender constructs, and that is a revolution against our insatiable need for finite resources and money as the controlling influences in our lives. LOL, I don't see this happening without some kind of world catastrophe coming first. |
Agreed from the very bottom of my heart. I hope it's zombies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Finally, someone has unravelled the mysteries of human genetics and can explain how heredity determines behaviour. I look forward to reading all forthcoming proof.
Sorry, but sarcasm doesn't invalidate the point--and you raised the point of diagnosing CEO'S as a symptom of patriarchy. The burden of proof actually lies with you. My position is self-evident. Let's use an analogy: How would you characterize the necessary qualities of personality required of a nurse, teacher, or computer programmer? Now, step up to what qualities of personality help to make a successful CEO? It's a competitive world out there.
Yeah, that would be the whole point of this feminist thing we have going.
Not really. Feminism, as an ideology, is too limited to encapsulate the real need here. We need to approach things with more egalitarian and humanist precepts. Feminism, in essence isn't synonymous with egalitarianism. If it was, it would be called egalitarianism.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| And unless you want corporations to radically change.... |
I sure do!
Me too, actually. They are a scourge.
I hope it's zombies. |
Uh, right... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
whatever
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Korea: More fun than jail.
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we just talk about sex with Asian women, please?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="The Gipkik"]
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Finally, someone has unravelled the mysteries of human genetics and can explain how heredity determines behaviour. I look forward to reading all forthcoming proof.
Sorry, but sarcasm doesn't invalidate the point--and you raised the point of diagnosing CEO'S as a symptom of patriarchy. The burden of proof actually lies with you. My position is self-evident. Let's use an analogy: How would you characterize the necessary qualities of personality required of a nurse, teacher, or computer programmer? Now, step up to what qualities of personality help to make a successful CEO? It's a competitive world out there.
|
You are claiming biological determinism is a commonly understood truth, genetic definitely determines personality and you say the burden of proof rests with me? You essentially have just dismissed the nature vs nurture debate with that assertion. No, sir. That is a fabulous claim, it is you who needs to show some proof.
| The Gipkik wrote: |
[ [/b]
Yeah, that would be the whole point of this feminist thing we have going.
Not really. Feminism, as an ideology, is too limited to encapsulate the real need here. We need to approach things with more egalitarian and humanist precepts. Feminism, in essence isn't synonymous with egalitarianism. If it was, it would be called egalitarianism. |
Feminist ideology is certainly not limited. To put it in a nutshell for you, feminist ideology names inequality between men and women as its main problem. There are many different schools of though as to what the cause of that problem is. Of course feminism isn’t synonymous with egalitarianism, but that does not mean they are entirely independent. Perhaps to reach gender equality we would have to reach overall equality. Fine, there are definitely feminist schools of thought advocating just that. Radical feminism, for instance, or Marxist feminism are two great examples.
It would take nothing short of zombies or aliens to shake the corporate world. Or catastrophic climate change, which is actually pretty likely, but probably not catastrophic enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sex with asian women is awsome. Keep asian women well sexed at all times and increase world happiness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sjv8603
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Location: busan
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| The Gipkik wrote: |
I never said dressing in a sexy way empowered ALL women--for some, it would be quite foolish. And generalizing that men are the real power holders and many Western nations (I assume this is what you were talking about, but if it's Korea, then, yes, we're talking Patriarchy) are still patriarchical is too simplistic. This needs defense beyond gender stereotyping and biological determinism. And major revolution for what? Where? And really, why? |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
I love 'aboxofchocolates' line of reasoning: most top CEOs are men so there must be sexism against women. There are also not many children, mentally/ physically handicapped, or criminal CEOs either so they are clearly discriminated against as well.
Quick question, if feminism is ok, how come the male counterpart, chauvinism is not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangwonbound
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When I think of Asian women I think of women that have been bought up in that culture...I find Asian women sexy but only if they were bought up in the West etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
You are claiming biological determinism is a commonly understood truth, genetic definitely determines personality and you say the burden of proof rests with me? You essentially have just dismissed the nature vs nurture debate with that assertion. No, sir. That is a fabulous claim, it is you who needs to show some proof.
Sorry, but YOU are claiming that biological determinism is a commonly understood truth and that genetic (What?) DEFINITELY determines personality. Don't try and squirm out of this one. Men AND women who become CEO's, Captains of Industry or whatever, have strong individual tendencies based on the following personal attributes: they are aggressive, persuasive, often perceptive, highly analytical, highly driven, capable of thinking laterally, strong motivators, self-centered, but capable of being conciliatory when it is expedient, and on and on. These attributes, in themselves, do not belong to any one sex and are certainly not merely based on their personal DNA blueprint, but it does make a powerful, if not fixed, imprint--and can be considered a convergence of positive evidence that men AND women in these roles, often display.
You could argue that society, as a general statement, is not raising the kind of women that aspire to become CEO's and World Leaders, but this kind of thinking leads down a lot of slippery slopes. For example, if society raised women who aspired to become CEOs, then they would need to develop or already have the qualities discussed above. Now, these qualities are not simply created through our education system or from parents and other mentors who want this for women. This is naive. It couldn't happen. The reality is that top-down, hierarchical systems, therefore, must be patriarchical. And corporations are top-down, hierarchical systems, therefore, ipso facto, they are patriarchical. Probably not that simple. Thus, you want a revolution to undo hierarchical and top-down systems. That sounds like good old-fashioned egalitarianism to me.
You are also implying, correct me if I am reading too much here, that nurture has a predominant role to play in constructing gender. Now, granted, the idea of gender, in itself, is a social construct, so what fundamental qualities are actually masculine and feminine, outside of biological characteristics such as body shape and size also needs to be examined--and it has, ad nauseum. This is another tired and basically ineffectual argument. There is far too much statistical data available, from psychological, medical journals, double-blind control tests, etc., that indicates a lot of what makes humans function as distinct sexual organisms, is not mere adaptation and environmental influence, but as a result of genetic and hormonal tendencies. There are very real genetic reasons why a baby boy would rather play with a truck, blah, blah, blah...
I'm still waiting for you your reasoning as to why CEO's, by virtue of being primarily male, are a clear symptom of patriarchy.
Feminist ideology is certainly not limited. To put it in a nutshell for you, feminist ideology names inequality between men and women as its main problem. There are many different schools of though as to what the cause of that problem is. Of course feminism isn�t synonymous with egalitarianism, but that does not mean they are entirely independent. Perhaps to reach gender equality we would have to reach overall equality. Fine, there are definitely feminist schools of thought advocating just that. Radical feminism, for instance, or Marxist feminism are two great examples.
Nice summary. I just see a lot more inequality between men and men, women and women, first, but I won't discount the gross and barbaric inequalities that many women and some men experience in less developed countries.
It would take nothing short of zombies or aliens to shake the corporate world. Or catastrophic climate change, which is actually pretty likely, but probably not catastrophic enough.
Yes, it is time for a serious paradigm shift, but I am not as pessimistic as you. It is possible and it doesn't require any zombies to get us there.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gangwonbound
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gipkik wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
You are claiming biological determinism is a commonly understood truth, genetic definitely determines personality and you say the burden of proof rests with me? You essentially have just dismissed the nature vs nurture debate with that assertion. No, sir. That is a fabulous claim, it is you who needs to show some proof.
Sorry, but YOU are claiming that biological determinism is a commonly understood truth and that genetic (What?) DEFINITELY determines personality. Don't try and squirm out of this one. Men AND women who become CEO's, Captains of Industry or whatever, have strong individual tendencies based on the following personal attributes: they are aggressive, persuasive, often perceptive, highly analytical, highly driven, capable of thinking laterally, strong motivators, self-centered, but capable of being conciliatory when it is expedient, and on and on. These attributes, in themselves, do not belong to any one sex and are certainly not merely based on their personal DNA blueprint, but it does make a powerful, if not fixed, imprint--and can be considered a convergence of positive evidence that men AND women in these roles, often display.
You could argue that society, as a general statement, is not raising the kind of women that aspire to become CEO's and World Leaders, but this kind of thinking leads down a lot of slippery slopes. For example, if society raised women who aspired to become CEOs, then they would need to develop or already have the qualities discussed above. Now, these qualities are not simply created through our education system or from parents and other mentors who want this for women. This is naive. It couldn't happen. The reality is that top-down, hierarchical systems, therefore, must be patriarchical. And corporations are top-down, hierarchical systems, therefore, ipso facto, they are patriarchical. Probably not that simple. Thus, you want a revolution to undo hierarchical and top-down systems. That sounds like good old-fashioned egalitarianism to me.
You are also implying, correct me if I am reading too much here, that nurture has a predominant role to play in constructing gender. Now, granted, the idea of gender, in itself, is a social construct, so what fundamental qualities are actually masculine and feminine, outside of biological characteristics such as body shape and size also needs to be examined--and it has, ad nauseum. This is another tired and basically ineffectual argument. There is far too much statistical data available, from psychological, medical journals, double-blind control tests, etc., that indicates a lot of what makes humans function as distinct sexual organisms, is not mere adaptation and environmental influence, but as a result of genetic and hormonal tendencies. There are very real genetic reasons why a baby boy would rather play with a truck, blah, blah, blah...
I'm still waiting for you your reasoning as to why CEO's, by virtue of being primarily male, are a clear symptom of patriarchy.
Feminist ideology is certainly not limited. To put it in a nutshell for you, feminist ideology names inequality between men and women as its main problem. There are many different schools of though as to what the cause of that problem is. Of course feminism isn�t synonymous with egalitarianism, but that does not mean they are entirely independent. Perhaps to reach gender equality we would have to reach overall equality. Fine, there are definitely feminist schools of thought advocating just that. Radical feminism, for instance, or Marxist feminism are two great examples.
Nice summary. I just see a lot more inequality between men and men, women and women, first, but I won't discount the gross and barbaric inequalities that many women and some men experience in less developed countries.
It would take nothing short of zombies or aliens to shake the corporate world. Or catastrophic climate change, which is actually pretty likely, but probably not catastrophic enough.
Yes, it is time for a serious paradigm shift, but I am not as pessimistic as you. It is possible and it doesn't require any zombies to get us there.
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Gipkik wrote: |
[b]Sorry, but YOU are claiming that biological determinism is a commonly understood truth and that genetic (What?) DEFINITELY determines personality. Don't try and squirm out of this one. |
Whaaaa? That is pretty much the opposite of everything I have ever argued.
Then I read the rest of your comments, and you once again begin citing biological determinism as a proof after just saying I believe it to be a commonly understood truth when I don't...
As for your list of attributes displayed by CEO's, not only do I not believe them to be biological in origin, but I doubt they are even inherent in these individuals psychologies I suspect if these attributes are displayed at all they are reflections of what these individuals are expected by his or her peers to display at any given time.
A patriarchy is where the majority of those in leadership roles or positions of power are men. CEO's are people in positions of power or leadership roles. Most CEO's are men. There you have it- patriarchy.
(edited for unnecessary snarkiness)
Last edited by aboxofchocolates on Tue May 05, 2009 12:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
| The Gipkik wrote: |
I never said dressing in a sexy way empowered ALL women--for some, it would be quite foolish. And generalizing that men are the real power holders and many Western nations (I assume this is what you were talking about, but if it's Korea, then, yes, we're talking Patriarchy) are still patriarchical is too simplistic. This needs defense beyond gender stereotyping and biological determinism. And major revolution for what? Where? And really, why? |
Nope, the generalization is fair. Look at the top CEO's and world leaders. They're men. A major revolution for women. In the world. To be treated equaly to men in all areas. |
Memo to:
Nancy Pelosi, Condeleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginnsberg, and Barbara Boxer;
none of you count as world leaders. |
Oh for the love of- count them! Is the representation 50:50- no! |
What, we have to meet a certain quota of female leadership so that feminists will be happy?
Horsehockey.
If you look at graduates of medical schools and law schools, you'll see that roughly half of them are female. That we don't see roughly 50:50 representation may mean that 30 years ago there was sexism. But give it another 30, hell I think only 15, and I think you'll start to see women in power all over the place.
There are still problems in certain sectors. Like I believe in the chemical sciences there is discrimination. But its nowhere near as pervasive as you'd like to paint it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sjv8603 wrote: |
I love 'aboxofchocolates' line of reasoning: most top CEOs are men so there must be sexism against women. There are also not many children, mentally/ physically handicapped, or criminal CEOs either so they are clearly discriminated against as well.
Quick question, if feminism is ok, how come the male counterpart, chauvinism is not? |
Wow, women have the mental developmental capacity of the mentally handicapped and children now? The moral responsibility of criminals? Wow, that's one interesting stance you're taking there. Good luck with that one.
Feminism addresses the systemic disempowerment of women. Would you advocate a white power meeting as the counterpart to racial equality activist groups? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
