QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
Except that from the start, this conversation was about the part of the study that had made conclusions about women. No-one was talking about men. Add to which the whole point of the study was to compare men with women. So there is some reason to distinguish between the two.
So which is it-- is there no point in talking about men because the study was about women, or are we supposed to be talking about men because the study was about comparing women and men? You seem to be saying both here.
When I said "there is no reason to distinguish between the two," I was talking about gender and bio sex, not men and women.
QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
And yeah, no reason for gender roles to exist, but they do. No reason for SUVs either. Can we at least have discussions about things that happen to exist in the world, regardless of whether they are constructed, or artifacts of the patriarchy?
We can talk about gender roles, but we don't have to talk about them as if they are inevitable and monolithic. They are not inborn, they are taught, so they vary considerably based upon culture and family, and not everyone has the same idea about what they are. Therefore they're rather fuzzy things to use to make sweeping statements about The Nature of The Genders.
Saying "there is no reason for them to exist" is not the same as saying "they cannot be discussed." I imagine (though can't be bothered to double check) that whatever you said previously led me to believe that you were talking about gender roles as if they had to exist, so I said they didn't. I did NOT say "We can't talk about it anymore."
QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
It would be their mistake for going somewhere completely stupid, not yours for not saying enough words.
So basically you're calling me stupid.
I really did misinterpret what you said that one time, which I can no longer even remember, and I feel like you're continually accusing me of wilfully misinterpreting it or of being a big dummy. It was an honest mistake. Besides, I think I had a good point, whatever it was.
QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
In a less rigid society, we'd all be bisexual, right? There would be no gender roles, people would just be people? We could be attracted to minds rather than to bodies?
Why do you think that? I'm bisexual, but I don't buy into that whole "bisexuals are the best" bullshit. Bisexuals are have relationships with minds AND bodies too, but some of them are kind of pretentious and think that their attraction to both sexes is a freeminded rejection of sex-based attraction. Just because you rule out, say, women as potential romantic partners, because you are not attracted to them physically, doesn't mean your relationships with men are purely physical. No matter the sex of the people involved, romantic relationships are about sexual attraction AND intellectual compatibility and why are we even having this discussion? We've strayed from the topic at hand.
AN-yway.
Ben(OneWithStrange), why are having a relationship and doing social work mutually exclusive? I know social workers and future social workers who are in relationships, and I don't think it takes anything away from their studies or abilities. In fact, having a relationship can be beneficial to your work, because one's significant other can offer emotional support which can enable you to better perform your tasks.
Sure, you can't be on the job 24/7-- you need to set some time aside for your personal life-- but that's true whether you're married or single. If you devote yourself entirely to your job, you're likely to burn out rather quickly.