|
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 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: Why feminists are better in bed |
 |
|
Feminism and romantic love make very happy bedfellows
| Quote: |
Despite the forces ranged against the f-word, those who embrace it have stronger relationships - and are better in bed.
The news, for the terminally declining population of women who identify as feminists, is good. According to a study by researchers at Rutgers University, New Jersey, the classic New Yorker cartoon of two women discussing relationships in a coffee shop - "sex brought us together but gender drove us apart" - is plain wrong. Feminists are happier in love and better in bed.
I'm extrapolating a wee bit optimistically, but it's cheering to come across a study about the f-word that doesn't conclude 99% of respondents think the women's movement was about unshaved armpits. What the Rutgers researchers actually found was that, in a survey of college students and older adults, all in heterosexual relationships, men paired with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction. In addition, there was consistent evidence that male feminist partners were healthier for women's relationships, while there was scant evidence that women's feminism created conflict in liaisons.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd strongly disagree.
They are headcases when it comes to sex. The male *beep* is a symbol of repression against women. As you can imagine, every kind of headcase issue you can have, comes out when it comes to sex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| on November 15, 2007 2:12 AM, on the Guardian website, a blogger named misharialadwani wrote: |
| the Guardian wrote: |
| ...What the Rutgers researchers actually found was that, in a survey of college students and older adults, all in heterosexual relationships, men paired with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction." |
The trouble with citing surveys like this is that we are told nothing about the actual survey. Where enough people surveyed for the findings to be statistically significant? What exactly were the questions asked?I'm not querying this survey from an anti-feminist standpoint. I'm simply very suspicious of surveys in general unless I have a great deal more information about the metrics and the questions. |
Where's the actual study?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a quick description of the study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm
| Quote: |
t is generally perceived that feminism and romance are in direct conflict. Rudman and Phelan�s work challenges this perception. They carried out both a laboratory survey of 242 American undergraduates and an online survey including 289 older adults, more likely to have had longer relationships and greater life experience. They looked at men�s and women�s perception of their own feminism and its link to relationship health, measured by a combination of overall relationship quality, agreement about gender equality, relationship stability and sexual satisfaction.
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, then feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive, compared with non-feminist women.
Rudman and Phelan found no support for this hypothesis amongst their study participants. In fact, feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| on November 15, 2007 2:12 AM, on the Guardian website, a blogger named misharialadwani wrote: |
| the Guardian wrote: |
| ...What the Rutgers researchers actually found was that, in a survey of college students and older adults, all in heterosexual relationships, men paired with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction." |
The trouble with citing surveys like this is that we are told nothing about the actual survey. Where enough people surveyed for the findings to be statistically significant? What exactly were the questions asked?I'm not querying this survey from an anti-feminist standpoint. I'm simply very suspicious of surveys in general unless I have a great deal more information about the metrics and the questions. |
Where's the actual study? |
Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The people who think that they are the most happy in this world are probably the most illusioned.
A number of years ago (back in the 70s) a feminist author on an Irish TV talk show was plugging her new book, "G.I.B (aka 'Good in Bed')".
A Hare Krishna wiseguy on the same show cracked that it should be subtitled "Garbage in Book" ...
(His own wife later publicly accused him of neglecting and abandoning her, though ...)
Last edited by Rteacher on Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was seriously involved with a feminist for a few years right after university. The main source of 'relationship stability' was because she'd be so sick of all men in general, so I never had to worry one bit that she'd be interested in a friend of mine or meet some guy anywhere really. No one would want to put up with most of her political gender issues that she'd work herself up into a frenzy about.
Don't get me wrong, she had some good points which is why I was involved with her so long, but her feminist-based rants labeled her quickly as a headcase for most other people to even want to deal with.
Typical stuff like getting irate if someone held a door open for her, but then getting irate the next time if someone didn't. Basically it comes to the fact if you are a guy in front of her, you are going to hear it one way or the other.
Then there was the thing that all white men are spawns of the devil and should have no interest whatsoever in women. But if you are gay, then open discussions on sex is refreshing and strongly encouraged. If you are black, then it's also refreshing and exciting and slightly dangerous which is also exciting. If you are white male, then you are repressing everyone and shouldn't be allowed to be interested in women. In other words, feminists are a bundle of serious contradictions.
The most exciting part if when you meet a sexually-charged hetero Latino guy who goes overly aggressive on the woman with hardcore passes and watching the feminist go between fits or rage against the gender but equally messed up that he's not white and therefore victimized and watching her head spin on how to handle the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It strikes me that she had a more problems than "men" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
I was seriously involved with a feminist for a few years right after university. The main source of 'relationship stability' was because she'd be so sick of all men in general, so I never had to worry one bit that she'd be interested in a friend of mine or meet some guy anywhere really. No one would want to put up with most of her political gender issues that she'd work herself up into a frenzy about.
Don't get me wrong, she had some good points which is why I was involved with her so long, but her feminist-based rants labeled her quickly as a headcase for most other people to even want to deal with.
Typical stuff like getting irate if someone held a door open for her, but then getting irate the next time if someone didn't. Basically it comes to the fact if you are a guy in front of her, you are going to hear it one way or the other.
|
So you went out with a complete nutter and now you are an expert on all feminists, eh? I have never met these women who go into a rage when men open the door for them, I suspect you were just a lucky bugger then who hit the jackpot. When men open the door for me I smile and say "Thank you" or "Cheers" and I regular open the door for others. I've never heard another woman complain about it either. And feminist based ranting? Of all the thousands of women I've met in my life, I've only ever heard a handful do any thing that remotely qualified 'feminist-based ranting.' Yet I've quite often had to sit and listen to some whiny bloke rant on about how feminism has 'swung too far' blah blah blah (leaving his sorry little arse behind). And naturally, these were piteous little men I would never for a nanosecond have considered shagging.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks! Actually the reporter in the first article should have at least included the study author's names. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are all kinds of feminists. When you tap into the more hardcore ones, it's a totally different world.
There are a lot of women who are like 'armchair feminists'. The kind that just have the most mainstream of views of women issues. The mainstream simplistic and most basic views that everyone can easily agree with.
But if you get more into the culture, the literature, the academic discourse, more hardcore communities, it's a totally different ballgame/world.
Big_Bird, if you are a 'feminist', you'd strike me much more mainstream and would agree with the more 'acceptable views' that nearly everyone would agree with. You definetely don't strike me as someone who would be wallowing around in the actual culture of feminist and reading academic discourses on feminism today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Author, "The Women's Room" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Big_Bird, if you are a 'feminist', you'd strike me much more mainstream and would agree with the more 'acceptable views' that nearly everyone would agree with. You definetely don't strike me as someone who would be wallowing around in the actual culture of feminist and reading academic discourses on feminism today. |
Yes, I consider myself a feminist, and have a rather dim view of (most of) the women I meet who say they are not. [That all depends on their reasoning - if they have a good argument, I find them interesting. If it is merely that they are scared of looking uncool, I rather despise them].
I want a world in which any future daughter (or granddaughter) of mine is not disadvantaged by her gender. But I don't want my lovely little sons disadvantaged by theirs, either. I want a society that is good for everyone. Most feminists I know feel the same way.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin |
|
|
| 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
