Freethinking Women

[DeusExMachina]

An interesting topic that was brought up in another forum I frequent is women and freethought. Why isn't there more women speaking up about their beliefs? Why don't most women take a more active role? The 60s and 70s saw radical feminists, but where have they gone now? Why don't more women speak about Atheism or Freethought in general? Is our society still living by the man works/woman cleans approach?

Discuss.

 

[Ikerous]

I've never met a woman that enjoyed debating
(Not saying they dont exist, just that its a lot more common among men)
It's hard to have opinions without debate
(At least good ones)

Why don't they enjoy debating?
Well, because of their inferior brains of course

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah, I think I've met maybe...one female who ever debated because she wanted to.

 

[JNightshade]

I've known a bunch. It's always cool debating someone so completely different from you. Plus the sex afterwards is surprisingly good

 

[mortiz]

Well, because of their inferior brains of course

Heh, be thankful that 99% of the people who frequent this forum are guys

There are women out there that like a good mass debate.

Plus the sex afterwards is surprisingly good

Is that some forfeit for losing a debate where you live?

 

[Puzzlemaker]

Woman... that dont... think freely?

I know this girl who has very, very, very strong opinions about things.

And she has an evil eye. A really scary evil eye.

 

[Darkside55]

Maybe they just don't care anymore. There were so many radicals back in that era (the 60's and 70's) because women had, up until that point, only been seen in the "traditional" role of housewives, and their opinions were seen as uninformed or somehow inferior. That's why they spoke out against it, to change preconceptions. Now that they have...I guess they just don't care anymore, and are content to lapse into having their opinions based off of what other people around them feel, or social norms, etc.

I'm hardpressed to think of a woman I've ever met who's been around my age (at any point, but right now early-to-mid 20s) that's held strong beliefs about anything that were formulated on her own, without outside influence. And I can think of ZERO who could debate past, "That's just what I believe."

Also...mortiz, Ikerous was in no danger of a woman reading what he said. There are no women on the internet.

 

[OvA]

political debate > regular foreplay

 

[Raeven0]

Actually, I know a girl who will argue to the death with me over religion. Very strong atheist, she.

 

[Que-Ever]

Is that some forfeit for losing a debate where you live?

Don't I wish :/

 

[NotATool]

The president of my old debate club was a cute girl.

 

[Hullu]

I know plenty of girls like that. But I don't know that many people, men or women, who have very good arguments to back up their beliefs.

 

[bliink]

You just don't look hard enough

 

[gick]

Most guys I know don't like having a political debate, let alone the ladyfolk. I guess all my friends are really apathetic.

 

[$kelet0r]

guys dominate debating = fact
the fact that girls do debate is equivalent to saying girls play FPS - some do, most don't and they are utterly outnumbered by their male counterparts

 

[Sulkdodds]

john is right. I know a couple, but really not that many.

 

[JNightshade]

I'd like to say that John is dead wrong. I've a few female friends who will DOMINATE you in a debate or argument. Man, once their right to choose is threatened...

 

[$kelet0r]

I'd like to say that John is dead wrong. I've a few female friends who will DOMINATE you in a debate or argument. Man, once their right to choose is threatened...

oh no argument there, there are plenty of women i know who won't out argue me but in competitive debating will outscore me horribly
damn their feminine charms
but in terms of sheer numbers actively involved men>>>>>>>>>>>>women

 

[Yuri]

I let my women think for themselves once a week, on Fridays. If they have been good, that is.

Ha, I'm kidding. (They're permitted on Fridays and Wednesdays)

 

[The Monkey]

Yeah, I know quite a lot of women who like to debate, but they all suck on it. I almost always win in debates against women, although there some that are quite good.

 

[Cooper]

There are plenty of women out there who enjoy debate. Seriously, just walk into a room and yell "abortion sucks!" and you'll see what I mean.

 

[BirdMan]

Omg I find this topic great because I asked myself the same question 2 weeks ago, and done a little (non scientific) ressearch on it. On 10 close friends girl I met, 3 really debated with me to protect their ideas (poltical and philosophical), 2 gave up after 3-4 arguments and 1 stood against me. I did the same thing with 12 of my close male friends... Well call this test biased or not, 11 debated with me, and 10 stood for their ideas... Is it because we are more arrogant? Is it cause we have more "pride" being strong as well in our physical shape as in our ideas? Is it 'cause woman gave up on political and philosophical issue considering they were put apart since the begining of history until the 20th century? I don't know, but something I found funny.. maybe not relevant, but still funny.. is that the 3 girls who accepted debating with me, were the 3 ugliest chick of my friensd.. This led me to the conclusion that, because they didn't have the beauty at first.. they weren't born to be "socially" beautifull, well they stopped and asked themselves the question: "Why am I ugly"... and so on... Maybe this is why these girls are more open for debating because they had to "think" and interrogate themselves about a question they did not have an answer too, opposed to the beautiful chicks who had everything for themselves since the begining.(lol I know this sounds absurds and farfetched, you can boo me on this but I did this research for fun and I will not use this as an argument to prove that girls do not like debating... It's just a fun fact )

Continue sharing idea guys, I'm interested in this subject

P.S ( dont see this as: Ugly --> debate, Beauty--->No debate ) IT's maybe just a coincidence and there is probly exceptions in every case

 

[Yuri]

Pfft, none of us actually know any girls. We are on a gaming forum for god's sake!

 

[el Chi]

I think it's relative. By which I mean; before the initial Feminist movement of the '60s and '70s, women were very much sidelined and subjugated. Now whilst its true - to an extent - that there isn't quite as much of a loud feminist voice now as perhaps there was in the '60s-'70s, it's because that was the initial explosion, so to speak. That was the time that was really very revolutionary and got the ball rolling for equal rights. Now, things are much better and so things perhaps don't need to be quite so radical or out-spoken.

It would, of course, be naive to say everything's peachy and that the sexes are completely on equal footing because that's absolute nonsense. Women often get the raw end of the deal, despite how competent they may be; there is still a lot of sexism and male superiority in politics, the workplace and society in general. That's the hangover of traditional, ignorant views that have been ingrained for centuries that the feminist movement worked so hard so do away with. However, because they are so ingrained, it can't be done overnight - things are better than pre-feminism, which shows an erosion of these views after the outright destruction of other inequalities.

There are lots of sexual discrimination trials that go in the favour of women (who are usually the centre of such discrimination, let's be honest) and there are still many feminists in academia, etc. Their collective voice is just not as loud as it was when the biggest changes were being made.

 

[Nat Turner]

Women in general care more about their personal life, sphere of influence, and local community. Men tend to be more interested than women in the bigger picture. It's just how it is and always has been.

 

[Hullu]

Nat Turner Women in general care more about their personal life, sphere of influence, and local community. Men tend to be more interested than women in the bigger picture. It's just how it is and always has been.

That's because men are idealists, women realists.

 

[el Chi]

Women in general care more about cooking, sewing and giving birth. Men tend to be better at most things, in many ways. It's just how it is and always has been.

Fixed for subtext.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Men in general are more competitive, arrogant and dominant, as they seek to compete for mates.

Females in general are more agreeable, ressisive and caring as they seek males that are capable of providing for them and their children.

This isn't traditional backward views, these are biological realities that have existed for all of human history. It's ridiculous to think that women have been oppressed for all of human history, no one can be oppressed for that long. If women were being oppressed we would see cycles and revolutions of female dominance through out history.

To be quite frank, although the feminists revolutions have given some well justified freedoms to females, on the whole, women are being objectified and disrespected now more than ever. Not only that, but as a result of these freedoms, there has been alot of gender confusion.

divorce rates are now over 50% in the united states. Divorce has replaced death as the number one cause of marital seperation.
depression rates are also increasing. (im not sure about american, but in australia 1 in 5 people will become depressed at some point in their life).

These are really big issiues, and unfortuneatly, the feminist revolutions have played are part in the creation of these issues.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I'd like to say that John is dead wrong. I've a few female friends who will DOMINATE you in a debate or argument. Man, once their right to choose is threatened...

Do they have emails? I realllllllllllllllly wanna debate with them.

 

[Glirk Dient]

You first have to know a real woman in order to determine if they have political beliefs.

I have met more than I should have of free thinking...or overt women. Vegetarians aren't ones to mess with, the slightest hint at a meat related subject or mention of gets you a banter of vegetarian self defense one liners.

Man I hate vegetarians.

 

[el Chi]

Men in general are more competitive, arrogant and dominant, as they seek to compete for mates.

Females in general are more agreeable, ressisive and caring as they seek males that are capable of providing for them and their children.

Males are more arrogant, aggressive and competitive. This does not make them more competent. In fact, it's arguable that this can be completely counter-productive.

This isn't traditional backward views, these are biological realities that have existed for all of human history.

Nonsense. There are of course biological differences that can initially have us go one way or the other. However this neither explain nor justify such out-moded views. If you wish to argue that we are still slaves to biological impulse, then you must also defend rape; the brutal assault or even murder of rivals in the seeking of sexual partners; and so many other things observable in the natural world that we, as sentient beings, have transcended.

It's ridiculous to think that women have been oppressed for all of human history, no one can be oppressed for that long. If women were being oppressed we would see cycles and revolutions of female dominance through out history.

The Jews were oppressed for a few thousands of years, so I'd say that yes, people can be oppressed for so long. I'm not up for some pro-/anti-Semetic argument, because that's not the topic at hand, but it's an undeniable proof of long-standing oppression.

And it's perfectly possible to see the rise and fall of female power. Queens of vastly successful empires, for example (Cleopatra; Elizabeth I; the list goes on).
Plus, the suffragette movement was fighting for women's rights in a number of countries world-wide, long before the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s, and I'd say that's a pretty high-point in women's fight for equality ; but not dominance. Neither suffragettes nor feminists were ever out for dominance; it was equality they were after.

To be quite frank, although the feminists revolutions have given some well justified freedoms to females, on the whole, women are being objectified and disrespected now more than ever. Not only that, but as a result of these freedoms, there has been alot of gender confusion.

Whilst you have something of a point, that is not the fault of feminists, nor of women, but of a male-dominated society placing impositions and expectations on all of us. Considering the massive inequalities the feminist movement had to oppose, it's not as if one or two huge bursts would solve everything.
No social/political movement works that way. The civial rights and anti-apartheid movemets, for example, provided some huge leaps and bounds, but did they solve all the racial inequalities? Of course they didn't - the problems they faced were too large, too numerous and too ingrained. Does this mean they were a failure? Of course not. Does this highlight some weakness in the mentality of ethnic minorities? Of course not.

divorce rates are now over 50% in the united states. Divorce has replaced death as the number one cause of marital seperation.
depression rates are also increasing. (im not sure about american, but in australia 1 in 5 people will become depressed at some point in their life).

These are really big issiues, and unfortuneatly, the feminist revolutions have played are part in the creation of these issues.

Please explain how feminism has led to higher divorce rates and even depression, rather than making such an unsubstantiated, rather nonsenical assertion.

 

[Hullu]

Man I hate vegetarians.

Me too, why do they think everyone else should be a vegetarian just because they are?

This is to you, Frenzy. (I still don't know how to quote in order to get that 'originally posted by' above the quote.)

This isn't traditional backward views, these are biological realities that have existed for all of human history.

So do you really think that everything you do and think is because of biological realities? It's easy to justify everything like that, but I don't think that's all there is to the human condition.

It's ridiculous to think that women have been oppressed for all of human history, no one can be oppressed for that long.

That's an interesting logic. Could you elaborate on that? I'm going to use the biological realities argument here, because it can be a factor with some issues.
Before the invention of contraceptives, women were bound to taking care of their children because men wouldn't and women had a sense of responsibility. A woman couldn't refuse to have sex, she could always be raped and made to have children. Even if women had tried to fight for their rights, it wasn't easy just by means of violence and physical power, because women really are physically weaker than men, in general that is.
It's a biological fact that is difficult to refute, so it makes sense that only as people have slowly over the course of history become accustomed to thinking that women are equal to men, it became possible for women to have more rights. If women had wanted to avoid violence, being more civilized and intelligent than warfaring men, their attempts at a 'revolution' could easily be prevented. For example, if a woman wanted to write an article for a newspaper and demand more rights for women, it was easy to prevent it being published because most of the publishers were men who didn't want to lose their power.

To be quite frank, although the feminists revolutions have given some well justified freedoms to females, on the whole, women are being objectified and disrespected now more than ever. Not only that, but as a result of these freedoms, there has been alot of gender confusion.

I agree that there's still much disrespect, but I wouldn't go as far as saying 'more than ever'. But what do you mean by 'gender confusion'?

divorce rates are now over 50% in the united states. Divorce has replaced death as the number one cause of marital seperation.
depression rates are also increasing. (im not sure about american, but in australia 1 in 5 people will become depressed at some point in their life).
These are really big issiues, and unfortuneatly, the feminist revolutions have played are part in the creation of these issues.

How are these issues connected to women's rights? Marriage is a conventional institution, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with equality between sexes. People don't divorce more nowadays just because women have more rights - I'm sure men can be unhappy in marriages, too. And even in Ancient Rome, women could divorce but they didn't have that many rights in general. People still remarried and I doubt the possibility of divorce had a serious influence on the society at the time.

And don't tell me you think depression is more common because women now have more rights?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Rise in divorce more due to general both-sexes sexual revolution and breakdown in traditional ideas of what constitutes a loving relationship than womens' rights alone.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Why isn't there more women speaking up about their beliefs? Why don't most women take a more active role?

My moms really a liberal. She's not afraid to speak her mind, is definately not afraid to work, and is most certainly prepared to swat down any man who thinks her only purpose in life is for male pleasing and cleaning. I like words the rhyme, cheese!

The 60s and 70s saw radical feminists, but where have they gone now?

I killed them all. Hahahaha! No seriously, I did. I can't stand being picked on by "Butch" Cassedys and the like. What the crap -- so, I'm gay, not talking to you ... why do you diss me? Oh, okay! I understand! It's because I have a penis. Right, well, thank you ... pardon me for this quick departure, I would stay and talk but your a bitch!

<fires*killsangryfeminazi*>

Why don't more women speak about Atheism or Freethought in general?

My sister would keep you up all night with her idea's on both.

Is our society still living by the man works/woman cleans approach?

Yep. North and South all suffer from it. Course, everywhere does actually.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Males are more arrogant, aggressive and competitive. This does not make them more competent. In fact, it's arguable that this can be completely counter-productive.

I never said it made men more competent. However, just as equally, ressesiveness and unwillingness to compete can also be counter productive.

Nonsense. There are of course biological differences that can initially have us go one way or the other. However this neither explain nor justify such out-moded views. If you wish to argue that we are still slaves to biological impulse, then you must also defend rape; the brutal assault or even murder of rivals in the seeking of sexual partners; and so many other things observable in the natural world that we, as sentient beings, have transcended.

I'm very glad you pointed this out. Because by no means do I endorse the biological impulse of animalistic human behaviour. However, to deny our biological roles, is to deny who we are. Our conception of what is right and wrong, our very conceptions of equality and fairness, must be based on the knoweldge and acceptance of the reality of our nature. From this knowledge of reality, we must formulate idealogical roles in soceity.

So for example, biologically, it would make sense for a man to kill something that is threatening him. However, with the knowledge that there are issuies with killing every immediate threat one faces in soceity, the ideology that killing is wrong is used so that we can function as a productive society.

Relating this to the case at hand, If men, by there biological nature, tend to be more aggresive and competitive, then we must create ideological roles to in order to compensate for this nature and in order to allow men to be productive and conform in soceity. Same goes for women.

The Jews were oppressed for a few thousands of years, so I'd say that yes, people can be oppressed for so long. I'm not up for some pro-/anti-Semetic argument, because that's not the topic at hand, but it's an undeniable proof of long-standing oppression. And it's perfectly possible to see the rise and fall of female power. Queens of vastly successful empires, for example (Cleopatra; Elizabeth I; the list goes on).

Yes Jews have been oppressed, however there rise and fall in power at various times in history are very common (there fall in power after the christians revolutions in rome, there rise in the renaissance period, there fall during the world wars, etc) . However, examples of females or females groups rising to power is very rare when comparing to the amount of males rising to power. And this is logical, because by mans biological nature, to compete and take risks, they naturally rise to the top. Females do not posses these power attaining charactersistic as much as men so they have not risen to the top. This doesn't mean that mean consiously work to oppress women, if that was the case, then we would see constant revolutions and womens rejecting this kind of oppression. What it means is, that females naturally are not as competitive and aggressive as males, thus do they do not attain power. This is not a issue for females, because it is in their nature to BE that way. If you are naturally more kind, aggreeagble, ressesive, etc, then being that way isnt a problem for you, because its natural.

Plus, the suffragette movement was fighting for women's rights in a number of countries world-wide, long before the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s, and I'd say that's a pretty high-point in women's fight for equality ; but not dominance. Neither suffragettes nor feminists were ever out for dominance; it was equality they were after.

Again, I am very glad you made this distinction here. Women are fighting for Equality, not Dominance. By all means,As human beings, I support all equal rights for females, and I did mention in my last post that females have gained some well justified freedoms from the feminist revolutions. However, the conception that females are EQUAL to males in an incorrect one. By our very natures we are different. We wouldnt need seperate words to distinguish between males and females if this wasnt the case. And according to these differences, seperate idealogical roles must be assigned.
This is why we have seperate events for women and men in the olympics. If men were equal to women, then we wouldnt need to seperate them in the olympics. So why shouldnt this same reason for seperation apply to all facets of life?
So for example; If males are more aggressive and more competitive by nature, why shouldnt a competitive buisness firm prefer males over females? This isnt work discrimination, its a logical decision to select the individuals who are most capable and suitable for the position. Sure females can also be competitive, but generally, males are more competitive, so it makes sense that more males would be accepted for a position in a competitive buisness firm.
The same goes for women, Public relation firms would be more willing to hire female employees, as females are generally more aggreable and easy to communicate with, that isnt work place discrimination, its a logical decision to employ the most suitable candidate.

Whilst you have something of a point [refering to my comment about how women are being objectified more than ever], that is not the fault of feminists, nor of women, but of a male-dominated society placing impositions and expectations on all of us. Considering the massive inequalities the feminist movement had to oppose, it's not as if one or two huge bursts would solve everything.
No social/political movement works that way.....

Here, are you suggesting the feminist revolutions have failed in giving women much more freedoms, and that they have lost the fight against a male dominated expectations? I think you are very mistaken to deny the amount of freedoms that are now accesible to females because of the feminists revolutions.

The feminists revolutions supposedly 'freed' women from the 'male dominated' (very argueable, but im not going to get into it) society's impositions and expectations of the 60s and 70s. If women didnt want to have these impostions of the 60s and 70s changed to be what they are today, they WHY did they have a goddamn revolution in the firstplace?
The feminists revolutions directly worked to change these expectations of the 60z-70z, and as a result these changes have evolved into the impositions and expectations we have today. These impostions and expectations arent male dominated, they are direct results of the feminists revolutions that have occured previously.

Why are females objectifed? because the feminists revolutions have given freedoms to females that they don't know how to use properly. Namely, Sexual liberation. Given these freedoms, women have chosen to become objectified by men. Women are objectifying themselves. This is why we had the expectations of the 60z & 70z, because men AND women knew that given these sexual freedoms, males (by there very nature) would take advantage of these sexual liberties given to women, and women (by there very nature) will succumb to them by objectifying themselves.

"oh that guy is hot, he looks so tough, and he looks as though his a caring kind of person, I think ill give him what he wants"

in the 60z and 70z, there would have been social expectations for females to be very careful (perhaps introduce the male to her parents, etc) before she shared any kind of intimate experience with a male because the nature of feminitiy and masculinity was well known. Those expectations werent there to opress females, they were there to protect them.

Social laws and expectaions hinder people from possessing nuclear weaponry, arguably, this is a form of opression, if the defense department can have nukes, why cant all people? because..PEOPLE do not know how to USE there freedoms RESPONISBILY. This is why you can't just go around throwing freedoms to everybody. Because in a soceity that is completely free, we would all be animals competeing for power...there would be total chaos. No one seems to understand this in this goddamn liberated culture.

Please explain how feminism has led to higher divorce rates and even depression, rather than making such an unsubstantiated, rather nonsenical assertion.

Im apologize for not making this clearer. Gender confusion plays a large role in higher divorce rates and depression. Gender confusion is happening, because these freedoms that the feminist revolitions have achieved for females allow females no longer to need males to provide for them (alothugh males providing for females has been the general norm for the entirety of human history). Hence, this has a large impact on a males psyche. Sexuality plays a large part in a persons individuality, hence, (in the case of human nature) when a male is no longer needed to compete and agress for mates, he becomes confused, his identity is no longer founded upon the basic principles of his nature.
Same goes for women, for example, in the pursuit of 'having a career' and being an 'individual' (ideas that are propagated through a soceity dominated by ecconomics and material pleasure) women have become confused by associating their identity with the workplace and not with their families. Being a working professional consumes a large part of a persons identity, so there is little room left for being a mother or a woman. This gender confusions causes unhappiness in marriages, and consequently results in divorce. This leads to children who do not grow up with parental figures who they can look up to, leading to further identity confusion.

Gender confusion plays a large role in depression in both the people who are confused and their children.

 

[Que-Ever]

guys dominate debating = fact
the fact that girls do debate is equivalent to saying girls play FPS - some do, most don't and they are utterly outnumbered by their male counterparts

What? there are like, 2 guys on our debate team at my school. The rest of the thirty or so are ALL girls.

I also happen to know this one girl... hoo boy, do not say anything along the lines of "dance is not a sport" around her...

 

[el Chi]

>>FrEnZy<<
I wrote this long counter-argument, but alas I lost it. However to sum it up:
You claim to be logical by basing society around an instinct-based ideology; to me, your arguments simply sound like regressive attitudes towards us as sentient beings (totally undercutting our potential) and blatant sexism.
I could see a twisted logic to your argument, yet that does not mean I agree with it, nor does that mean it holds much validity. It means that I could see your starting point.

Your attitudes towards "gender confusion" I found particularly infuriating. What you claimed was social observation; it sounded to me like the equivalent of saying "women have gotten ideas above their station"

I see no way whatsoever in our resolving this argument, nor coming to any sort of mutual understanding.

 

[15357]

Freethinking Women!? Heavens above, that is absurd!

-sarcasm-

I have something to add: "WHY IS IT THAT WOMEN DO NOT GET FORCIBLY CONSCRIPTED BUT MEN DO?" ITS NOT FAIR! THEY CAN FIGHT JUST AS WELL AS MEN!

 

[el Chi]

They'll be too busy making sure their cammo make up is on correctly and whether the uniform is in keeping with this season's styles. Besides, they can't put helmets on or it'll mess up their hair.
Naturally.

 

[CptStern]

the title is mildly insulting to women ...as if "free thinking" women are the exception not the norm ...as if they are somehow different to men when it comes to intelligence and it's a miracle any of them attain the same level of awareness as men. For every vapid bimbo only concerned with fashion and makeup there's an equally vapid manbo who's only concerned with sports/auto racing and boobies ...men are equally as stupid as women ..more so because society almost encourages us to be stupid

"duuurrr that exploded real good lets grab a beer and watch a football game"

I know that wasnt your intent, DeusExMachina, just commenting on how it can be misconstrued


/me pulls out Dwarven Oversized hammer and prepares to take on the advancing horde of Stern bashers :E