Is feminism ruining the West?

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,655
Courage is not a naturally female virtue, unfortunately
Explain that? Women survive in the world physically weaker than almost any male they meet while also outliving men and doing much of the world's labor unpaid. Physical courage might not be commonly innately female but then again that is probably centuries of evolution winnowing out women who challenge physically stronger men.
 
Feb 2011
6,459
Society also don't put as much value in physical courage for women as it does men. If a couple gets mugged in the street, it's expected for the man to protect the woman. If the woman protects the man, it's a TV trope that the man would feel inadequate. So how much is nature and how much is nurture? If you look at women from other cultures.... some of the bravest people I know are Russian women.
 
Last edited:

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,807
Sydney
women have at least as much courage than men
it just , usually , express itself in a different way than direct confrontation
if need be they rise to the occasion

men tend to relish it , probably too much for their own good
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
... doing much of the world's labor unpaid.
Purely as an aside, this has to be one of the most singularly ridiculous "feminist" talking points in existence. We are told again and again, "Women do unpaid labor for the sake of the world," yet the reality is that just as with anyone who labors, they work first and foremost for the sake of themselves and their own perceived interests, and moreover, the "pay" they receive for doing that labor is the money they save by not having to pay someone else to do it. I want my own home to be clean, for example, so at times, I vacuum it and set the objects within it in order. I am not doing that labor for society, I am doing it for myself. Moreover, because I did not need to pay someone else to do it, I saved money, which means I am financially ahead of where I might otherwise be, at least if all else is equal; if I'm an individual of amazing, profitable talents, it might make more sense for me to do some other sort of work at just pay someone else to clean my home, but anyone who is cleaning their own home is implying that such a situation does not apply to them. If a woman wants to take care of her elderly parents, that's fine; she's free to do so. If she wants to clean her home, or cook meals, or iron clothing, or whatever, that's fine; she's free to do so. But to turn around after doing those things and say, "Woe is me, I'm doing the labor of the world unpaid," is at best a misrepresentation, at worst an outright delusion. If no one is paying you to do something, whether or not you do it is ultimately up to you.

One could probably go as far as to suggest that the conscious and active promotion of victim mentality is a way in which feminism does some non-trivial harm to the social fabric of the West.
 
Likes: Haakbus

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,354
Purely as an aside, this has to be one of the most singularly ridiculous "feminist" talking points in existence. We are told again and again, "Women do unpaid labor for the sake of the world," yet the reality is that just as with anyone who labors, they work first and foremost for the sake of themselves and their own perceived interests, and moreover, the "pay" they receive for doing that labor is the money they save by not having to pay someone else to do it. I want my own home to be clean, for example, so at times, I vacuum it and set the objects within it in order. I am not doing that labor for society, I am doing it for myself. Moreover, because I did not need to pay someone else to do it, I saved money, which means I am financially ahead of where I might otherwise be, at least if all else is equal; if I'm an individual of amazing, profitable talents, it might make more sense for me to do some other sort of work at just pay someone else to clean my home, but anyone who is cleaning their own home is implying that such a situation does not apply to them. If a woman wants to take care of her elderly parents, that's fine; she's free to do so. If she wants to clean her home, or cook meals, or iron clothing, or whatever, that's fine; she's free to do so. But to turn around after doing those things and say, "Woe is me, I'm doing the labor of the world unpaid," is at best a misrepresentation, at worst an outright delusion. If no one is paying you to do something, whether or not you do it is ultimately up to you.

One could probably go as far as to suggest that the conscious and active promotion of victim mentality is a way in which feminism does some non-trivial harm to the social fabric of the West.
go back read your post and think about it.

Why are women doiing this work.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
Why women don't write Wikipedia articles. In their own words. Yep.
Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words)
So if that is too emotionally difficult, regular work is bound to be more stressful.
A comment from the site:
"
Hildegard says:
February 20, 2011 at 6:18 AM
I don’t edit Wikipedia because I see no reason why I should work for free for Jimmy Wales.

There are already more than enough jobs that women do for free – why on earth would I add to my tasks the drudgery of editing Wikipedia?

That said, I find your analysis offensively patronising."
:D
Hildegard is right: if she sees no value in editing Wikipedia for free, she should refrain from doing so. And likewise, she should refrain from any other sort of unpaid "drudgery" which she'd prefer not to do or in which she sees no value. The entire "unpaid work" issue comes down to this: if you don't want to do it, be like Hildegard and don't do it.

I for one am extremely grateful to those who spend their time editing Wikipedia; I find it a valuable resource. Yet if they started to bemoan the efforts involved and say, "We should really be paid for this," my response would be, "If you feel that way, then I suggest you cease doing it for free, and if no one else is willing to do it for free in your place, and if a sufficient section of the populace is willing to pay to have it done, perhaps you'll get your pay." The same applies to most other sorts of "unpaid work," really.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
go back read your post and think about it.
Thanks for the suggestion, but because I have the faculty of memory, I can recall what I wrote without needing to re-read it.

Why are women doiing this work.
Wrong question. The correct question is, "Why are women choosing to do this work?" The answer, in most cases, will be, "Because they desire the outcomes produced by that work," be it money saved, living space enhanced, a loved one's well being, or so forth, and that's perfectly fine. After all, if they did not, they would respond as Hildegard does, and not do the work. Why is a man more likely to edit Wikipedia than a woman? Because he cares to have it done. Why is a woman more likely than a man to sweep the floor? Same answer: she cares to have it done. This is also why on an individual scale, the pattern is sometimes reversed. For example, I know a man who is very particular about how he wants the dishes done, and accordingly, he does it almost invariably. You can see this dynamic play out in a comparison of housework done by single men and single women:



You can see that even when they each live alone, women do more housework than men, both in the past and now. And if you add in other things that women might be more inclined to do than men (e.g. caring for elderly parents for free), of course you're going to skew the figures further. That's called "choice."

The solution to every problem lies in the hands of the individual doing the "unpaid" work, as they can stop doing it at their pleasure, so long as they're willing to live without its benefits. Don't want to edit Wikipedia? Then don't. Don't want to wash your bathroom floor? Then don't. Don't want to home cook meals? Then don't.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Todd Feinman
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Explain that? Women survive in the world physically weaker than almost any male they meet while also outliving men and doing much of the world's labor unpaid. Physical courage might not be commonly innately female but then again that is probably centuries of evolution winnowing out women who challenge physically stronger men.
And what does outliving men and doing much of the world's labour have to do with courage? Women have lots of other fantastic qualities, but are generally speaking not as inclined to bravery than men - probably partially because women generally speaking are physically weaker than men.

That is not to say that women can't be courageous. Women can be incredibly brave - more so then men given what you rightly point out are the different circumstances. Generally though, for natural reasons, women are more interested in protecting the group, protecting their children, conforming and maintaining social norms rather than in questioning, challenging or doing something that might endanger these these things. Most women naturally like stability, tend to worry more than men and are more altruistic as well as also more agreeable and arguably more social than men. In conflicts women prefer to (often much more effectice, given that men really fight for social reasons) socially undermine their foe rather than engage in direct conflict: the dark side of men is violence (which i think is well established and everyone knows), the dark side of women is manipulativeness.

All of this is a generalization.

There is nothing bad about this. Men's courage wouldn't really have a point if it wasn't for women, but would only be psychopathic grandiosity chasing. All I'm saying is that as a group speaking women are not as predisposed to courage, or the things we traditionally associate with courage as men. Of course there is variation, and arguably there are some fields where women can probably be more brave than men, taken as a group. If one generalizes through, I think what I said is almost self evidently true.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions