Political Correctness: How bad is it at Brown?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
81

<p>I have deep respect people that do not start crying and whining at jokes. Some of the most racist jokes ive ever were spoken by a black friend.</p>

<p>My argument is not that women can cook therefore they should. I am not promoting just another tradition, i am rather promoting a tradition that has been effective and useful for so long, that changing it through radical means makes no practical sense. If you believe that women having to cook and occupy domestic jobs for thousands of years is oppression, then with that argument i can make an even better case that men have been oppressed for just as long by having to perform manual labor or by having to work OUTSIDE the home. It is not difficult to make an argument for that based on your reasoning. </p>

<p>Maybe it's just me, but somehow slavery or subsequent sharecropping does not compare in levels of opression to gender roles in a typical family in almost any part of the globe that are in place in virtually every human society in history (of course let's not forget the Amazons, look how they're doing), not to mention that the same is true for virtually any mammals.</p>

<p>GDWilder: I have to note that its refreshing to have an intellectual conversation with someone who actually brings valid, reasonable arguments and points and is not 23 going on 12.</p>

82

<p>Yes, being subjected to societal expectations of subservience and shut out of every position of power for thousands of years is a form of oppression. Just because certain groups (namely black and brown people) have had it worse doesn't justify centuries of sujugation, and it certainly doesn't legitimize the continuation of said prejudices. I'm sorry, but I don't see too many men wishing they could stay home, cook dinner, and never have a shot at self-actualization.</p>

<p>The point is not that women might find cooking enjoyable or acceptable, but that the stereotype has kept women from having the same opportunities as men for a long time.</p>

<p>Essentially, women get Jewed by stereotypical attitudes :-)</p>

83

<p>" to GDWilner. While I don't find it offensive (again, I don't find anything offensive), it IS a negative stereotype. </p>

<p>I could laugh at that if I knew the person well enough to know that he was saying it in jest and didn't believe it and was actually poking fun of stereotypes by doing so, but if he didn't acknowledge that a "dinner" command represents a level of harmful stereotype and subservience, I wouldn't find it funny.</p>

84

<p>Thank you, bjrwrh. You put it better than I could have.</p>

85

<p>a dinner command is funny and i dont see how hurtful one has to be to find it offensive. Likewise when I say "woman make me dinner" i dont actually expect to get dinner, in fact, more often slaps and hour-long feminist lectures follow. Feminists.... taking the fun out of life.</p>

<p>And being shut out of every position of power is really an exageration. As far as i remeber Cleopatra did not own a *****. Half of all the British monarchs, Katherine the Great and many others were in fact female. If you expect that there be an equal proportion of female leaders and male leaders, you are really really misguided, because all of the factors we've talked about including motherhood, childbirth, and domestic roles have been the responsibilities of women for a very long time. And you know what? That's ok. That's not bad, that's not oppression, that's life as it exists in virtually every animal society. Let's take a population of wolves... how many alpha males have been women... EVER? There is nothing wrong with that. Most of the "oppression" that you claim existed did so as a result of basic biology. In the case of African American discrimination, it takes its roots to the racist attitudes of middle Europeans and their greed, as they decided to make money off of the backs of the blacks. As far as I remember it was white women and men, because while their roles in society were defined, men and women were hardly unequals. If you wish to look absolutely retarded, you can keep making connections and relations between black slavery and women "oppression".</p>

<p>It should be noted that i regard women as intellectual equals. But physical, emotional, and a variety of other differences simply exist. Men are usually stronger, tend to be less emotionally expressive, more emotionally stable, better drivers (this is open to argument i'll admit), as far as i know have a MUUUUCH lower chance of getting pregnant, smell worse, etc. Again there are no absolute statements here; there are different individuals, but statistically this IS true and is not a result of any societal pressures or opressions. If you wish to ignore these differences, it's up to you, don't expect anyone else to.</p>

86

<p>Obviously, joking racist jabs can be funny in a number of contexts, but I would never walk up to a random black person and tell him to go pick cotton--it has to be done in a situation where both parties can appreciate the action of making fun of a stereotype.</p>

<p>Your wolves example...here you go with the naturalistic fallacy again. Just because men assume dominant societal roles biologically, doesn't mean they should. Making broad generalizations about groups of people accomplishes nothing and devalues individuality. I try (and often fail) not to judge individuals based on prejudices, or "demographics," as you might call them.</p>

87

<p>my wolves example encourages you to embrace biology, not to fight it. It shows that what you claim to have been opression for thousands of years, is not oppression but nature.</p>

<p>i can repeat that african american discrimination is not comparable to gender roles, but it seems that you're unclear on that concept</p>

88

<p>Once again--"it is, therefore it ought to be" is not a valid argument. I see no reason to be prejudiced against women just because males are traditionally in charge. In fact, most people investigating this matter agree that differences in achievement between women and men are due much more to societal causes than genetic differences.</p>

<p>I think discrimination against blacks is certainly analogous to discrimination against women. Women have always been subjected to societal disadvantages and not had the same opportunities as men. Granted, racial minorities have certainly had it worse, but that doesn't justify the plights women have faced.</p>

89

<p>I only have questions</p>

<p>Do you actually know how to read?
what societal disadvantages are you talking about? What opportunites?
What would your utopian society consist of?
When did i say that i am prejudiced towards women?
When did i say that achievement between women and men are due to genetic differences?</p>

<p>And yes, i don't fight nature. If something is promoted and supported by nature, i see absolutely no reason to change it through radical means. You don't seem to understand that nature made us a certain way. It made women more caring and gave them the ability to make children, to promote the future generation. It made men stronger, so they could hunt, get food, and provide for the family. This works, it just does. It works well. As the ability to provide is relying less and less on physical labor, women are advancing their careers and that is great. But it's noones fault that this didn't happen before. It's not oppression and it is not a problem.</p>

<p>And i would REALLY love to see your idea of how things should be/should have been. Are we gonna make men breastfeed? CLEARLY and society has been discriminating women by giving them the ability to breastfeed, thus hindering their educational and job opportunities.</p>

90

<p>OK. First of all, you might be surprised by the amount of variation of gender roles in both the animal kingdom and in human civilizations. In some species, the females do the hunting and fighting and such. In some species, the male is aggressive, but in others, the female is aggressive. Also, I really don't think it is valid to say that humans should function a certain way because the animal kingdom functions a certain way, as we (obviously) have perfected and eliminated certain animal behaviors and can continue to do so. If it is not neccessary for men to physically attack each other to get a woman, or for people to eat dead people to stay alive, or for people to produce children each time they have sex, then it is not necessary to subscribe to the gender roles of the animal kingdom (and, again, they vary greatly with each species).</p>

91

<p>I have never seen something as ridiculous as BullMoose's posts. laugh.</p>

92

<p>In those species where the female is "dominant," assuming what we consider to be "male roles" there is likewise a trade-off, with the males assuming traditional "female roles" - e.g. childbirth, childrearing, etc. Seahorses come to mind. Fact of the matter is, the "female roles" are much more costly, rendering role expansion highly "unfit." Male lions have the extra energy to have a mane, and it is useful in sexual selection - female lions do not, hence, they don't. Males could AFFORD to leave the home to hunt, and to put on grand shows of hostility and brute force - they didn't need to worry about carrying a child for months...they just need to worry about spreading their genes! It doesn't matter which sex does it, so long as the roles are fulfilled. Remember, genes have only one goal "in mind" - their own reproduction. Individual variations in species are there because they serve specific purposes that increase the fitness of that species.
And on that note, there is NO SUCH THING as "perfected" behavior. </p>

<p>Ok, so, yes, we are very high-functioning and all that, but we're still animals. We share a common ancestor with chimps. It is just something we need to come to terms with. Personally, I think it's ok, doesn't really rub me the wrong way. To me, it seems like...we now have the means for women's roles to be less "costly" - hence, women's roles are expanding. I think that's awesome, as I'm a woman. </p>

<p>What does this say about whether men SHOULD assume a dominant role? I'm not too sure. I'm not entirely comfortable talking about this from a biological standpoint, or any standpoint, for that matter. I mean, of course I don't think women should be subservient to men (duh). I'm just irritated that now I feel pressured to take advantange of my, uh, "liberation" as people like to put it...because it feels like taking advantage of it equates "have a career and refuse to even touch a traditional role." Damned if I do and damned if I don't, essentially.</p>

<p>Personally, I LOVE cooking and cleaning. Go figure.</p>

93

<p>flipflopgroove: will you marry me?</p>

<p>I absolutely agree with everything you said. If i said that i'd get "you hate women."
Society is forcing it down men's and women's throats, that nature and civilization are wrong, that what happens and is promoted by nature and thousands of years of history can't be right. I have no problem with women scientists, i have a problem with psycho feminists (feminist "men" included) who attack anyone who doesn't follow their stupid recycled dogma</p>

<p>choopity: thats possibly the weakest insult/rebuttal ive ever gotten.</p>

94

<p>Although you continually deny it, BullMoose, your argument really does devolve to a naturalistic fallacy. When you argue that nature and civilization support your claim, that is a textbook "it is, therefore it ought to be." A tradition only exists because people believe in it, or have believed in it for some time. Remember what Bertrand Russell warned about tradition: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." Arguing for an idea's superiority on these grounds is equivalent to saying, "millions of smokers can't be wrong," or "Saddam must have been behind 9/11 because 70% of Americans thought he was," or "slavery is a tradition, so we should keep it."</p>

<p>Note, however, that this does not say that a tradition cannot be correct, just that the fact that it exists is no reason whatsoever to believe that it should exist. And as of yet, you haven't given me one reason that traditional gender roles are good other than "nature and tradition."</p>

<p>Personally, I applaud anyone who chooses traditional gender roles, for if feminism is about anything, it's about choice. However, the fact of the matter is that women do not have the same opportunities as men to support themselves, make money, have careers, get elected to poiltical office, and all the other positions of power that have always been reserved for men. I would argue not for every woman out there to abandon the idea of staying at home and raising a family, but for the idea that society should present no barrriers to a woman who wants to do some of these things society says she shouldn't. There needs to be equality when it comes to these things. Equal rights, equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for advancement, no "glass ceiling"--all things that our society doesn't have. No one is arguing that being a homemaker is necessarily a bad thing, but I see no reason why women shouldn't be afforded the same opportunities as men. Women's liberation means just that--liberty to choose or to reject a previously unavailable lifestyle.</p>

<p>On a side note, is your name a reference to Rocky and Bullwinkle, Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, both, or something entirely different?</p>

95

<p>GDWilner made the good point that feminism is not about saying that women shouldn't be wives and mothers. It is about having the right to choose whether or not a woman wants to be a wife and mother, how to fulfill those roles, and to combine them with professional careers if a woman wishes. </p>

<p>About the biology thing again: chimpanzees operate on a territorial male hierarchy, but bonobos (which are closely related) operate on female hierachies.</p>

96

<p>This is refreshing, a return to the concept of "choice." It's not usually what I encounter, haha. ^__^</p>

97

<p>I applaud your rational approach to this issue; but i do not promote the natural fallacy the way you describe it. Also, i do not agree that feminism is about choice, how many feminists do you know that put their kids ahead of their careers. Don't deny that there's a bias.</p>

<p>"And as of yet, you haven't given me one reason that traditional gender roles are good other than 'nature and tradition.'"</p>

<p>Most of what i said was over 2 weeks ago but i can try to summarize some of the reasons this "tradition" of gender roles is a good one. "It has worked well" is not a good enough explanation for you but i can try to explain this with examples.</p>

<p>First and foremost it encourages a healthy family. Take a family with kids. When society tells women that they should "fullfill themselves", what usually happens is that the mother goes out and works, working hard to advance her career and to fight this terrible horrible evil discrimination that shes put under. What the child is left with is a babysitter that sees the child more than the mother. This said i am not saying that women should not work, but a primary concern of a mother should be her children, NOT her career. Now this is obviously a free society, and if putting the career ahead of your kids is your choice, then knock yourself out. When your kids turn out messed up, that will be on your conscience. Life isn't about getting paid as much as your spouse. And i am tired of people treating it like it is.</p>

<p>When my wife puts her career ahead of me or our children, i'll know it is time for a divorce.</p>

<p>Simply put, this conversation has gone severely off topic. It started with political correctness. I am not gonna continue arguing stupid stuff like this. To summarize i will say that the majority of the "problems" that you suggested are resultant of human/animal nature and established roles. If nature has it, it will one day go away (as is happening slowly with women getting better education/jobs). Trying to speed this up through the government will only bring you to unhealthy radicalism. Basically I understand your concerns and i honestly couldn't give less of a crap about your overidealistic ideas. </p>

<p>And on a last note. Have you noticed that you have not offered a single solution to your "problem." You have not said of a single manner in which we can make women and men finally absolutely equal like they obviously should be. </p>

<p>Let's see whats on the table </p>

<p>affirmative action for women?
hormone therapy for babies to make everyone equal?
how about giving women 2 votes to increase women in office?</p>

<p>Feminisits, perhaps the most vocal of many other similarly useless groups, do nothing but complain about "problems" that are as natural as nearsightedness. Doing so they spend millions and millions of dollars on god-knows-what. i have a much better idea, how about we direct all the money that feminists spend on "ERA" lapel buttons for aids relief. In fact I wonder how many African orphans can get a meal for the money it takes to run the National Organization for Women office for a day.</p>

98

<p>Both parents must be responsible for their kids, and not just the mothers, although the mothers will naturally do more with their kids than their fathers. Instead of complaining about how women neglect their kids for their careers, we should also complain about how men neglect their kids for their careers. </p>

<p>Obviously, legislation and education have made significant advances for women over the past years. </p>

<p>I agree that various women's organizations might not be serving needs that are as pressing as poverty in Africa, but that is true with many other charitable organizations. And if we're going to talk about helping poverty, we should also talk about government programs and military spending.</p>

99

<p>BullMooseandSqrl: </p>

<p>You stated in post #68 that "[women] are the centerpieces of families, get pregnant more often than most men i know, as a result have less access to higher education (that's called a fact)". Actually, that's called an unsubstantiated claim. Women were kept out of higher education well into the 20th century; in fact, Princeton did not go coed until as late as 1969. Surely you can't call this a biological cause?</p>

<p>I support my arguments: <a href="http://www.capitalcentury.com/1969.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.capitalcentury.com/1969.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Even more surprising, the number of women getting college diplomas in America has actually surpassed the number for men.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Women now make up 56 percent of the college population -- and that number continues to rise. Within ten years, three million more women than men could be attending college.

[/quote]

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/college.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec02/college.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In 2002, more women than men earned a doctorate, and in 2004 the number of med school applicants was higher for men than for women.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rspfunding.com/articles/article/1412351/16737.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rspfunding.com/articles/article/1412351/16737.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.rspfunding.com/articles/article/1412351/15687.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rspfunding.com/articles/article/1412351/15687.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Tell me again that women aren't suited for higher education?</p>

<p>In regard to kids reducing women's "access to higher education", an increasing number of women are putting off pregnancy until they reach a level of economic stability. Yes, that includes college, and in many cases grad school.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you said</p>

<p>
[quote]
i am not saying that women should not work, but a primary concern of a mother should be her children, NOT her career

[/quote]

I could argue that this is the case for fathers as well (as bjrwrh posted while I was writing this).</p>

<p>For that matter, I don't see why you are making this an EITHER/OR issue. You seem to be unaware of the fact that it is possible to combine a career with a marriage and kids. Case in point: My mother is a successful diplomat, but I have never felt neglected. I have a friend whose mother is an excellent psychiatrist; they have a wonderful relationship. </p>

<p>I don't suppose you'll listen to any of this, but I'd appreciate if you could stop making assertions out of nowhere.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, yes, I do like to cook, and yes, I do make delicious cardamom cake...and yes, if you told me "GO MAKE DINNER WOMAN" I would be offended. I've been working my ass off getting my math teacher to take me seriously despite the long blonde hair and dangly earrings, and reading about chemistry in my free time because I love the class, and I wasn't doing it for you to condescend me. Chances are I'm smarter than you anyway.</p>

100

<p>I wonder how offensive it will be found to tell a man/husband, </p>

<p>“go take out the trash”, </p>

<p>or </p>

<p>“go wash the car”?</p>

<p>...although, on second thought, this is probably just fine...no political angle.</p>