# Feminism, Political Correctness, Could they threaten the future of mankind?



## dreamwalker (Aug 24, 2005)

Today I watched a program presented by Michael Burke which talked about the role of modern day man; it discussed how the role of man in society had bent to the whim of feminism, the power of the female consumer, IVF and the single mother. 
It suggested how today’s society has suffered, for example the Larger louts and laddets, the lack of heroes (e.g. David Beckham in place of Neil Armstrong), metro sexual men (vanity and sensitivity replacing masciline traites), and gossip columns replacing discussions on intellectual and philosophical endeavours.
We’re living in a society where knowledge about Jessica Simpson’s latest diet is more rewarding than knowing how a light bulb works - And we all buy into it. 

Most of us are comfortable,
There are no *major* wars, diseases, people can walk the streets safely most of the time. There is healthcare, international trade and computer games.
But there are no more great voyages, adventures or endeavours into the unknown - and what little that is still is done in that respect is frowned upon with the preference by the majority towards ways of making our already comfortable lives, even more comfortable. 
Is the feminist sprit of the 60’s stunting humanities growth? Is the insistence that rage, adventure, technical (instead of social) endeavour, competitiveness and many more male traits are wrong, about to cause the new dark age?


Would you rather prefer mutually assured nuclear destruction to this fate that belies mankind…
Or am I just overreacting?


----------



## lucifer_principle (Aug 24, 2005)

Hang on with that thought...Yes feminism and the society. Well we no longer need muscle for anything anymore, not even to fight wars. I remember "the cold war" To me that was the beginning of what you are insinuating, I mean what's a war thats actually fought by intelligence and diplomacy alone. Ah I remember the good old times when you read about a soldier spending hours shapening his tool before any battle. Well what did we actually expect, the society started getting feminist the moment we allowed women to go out and work, in a way its all part of the package. I mean women are now CEO's and military high tops; not secluded to Condelisa Rice.
I am not sure I loath the way things are but how can I...too busy typing with my fingers and using all its finess and feministic skill. I heard someone mention technological revolution!


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 24, 2005)

...someone still needs to take out the trash—brawn is essential.


----------



## GOLLUM (Aug 24, 2005)

very good point Bro....


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 24, 2005)

GOLLUM said:
			
		

> very good point Bro....


...a man's lot in life


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 24, 2005)

Um...I think you might be confusing feminism with feminization.  Two different things, I think.  I don't think feminism, especially in its 1960s incarnation, had much to do with softening anyone up.  The point was more to see that women were not pushed off into only a few acceptable roles - mother, elementary school teacher, nurse, secretary - but were able to follow their interests wherever they led.  This does not preclude the existence of strong men - it does, however, somewhat alter what the definintion of a strong man is.  I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to limit the defintion of a "strong" man to those who can successfully dominate and intimidate women into a subservient role.  Certainly, some of the strongest men I know are fully in favor of women developing all of their interests and abilities.



			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> It suggested how today’s society has suffered, for example the Larger louts and laddets, the lack of heroes (e.g. David Beckham in place of Neil Armstrong), metro sexual men (vanity and sensitivity replacing masciline traites)




I feel bound to mention that some of the most vain men I know are of the macho-man type.  I also have to say that being a manly man [I hate that phrase - it sounds trite - but I can't think of any other way to put it] does not preclude being sensitive in the sense of being aware of and solicitous toward the feelings of others as opposed to charging around like an insensitive horse's behind.




			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> Most of us are comfortable,
> There are no *major* wars, diseases, people can walk the streets safely most of the time. There is healthcare, international trade and computer games.




I'm not sure that many people in many parts of the world would agree with you on this.  It is an extremely Eurocentric, US-centric, developed-world point of view.




			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> Is the feminist sprit of the 60’s stunting humanities growth? Is the insistence that rage, adventure, technical (instead of social) endeavour, competitiveness and many more male traits are wrong, about to cause the new dark age?




I'd not blame feminism for this.  To begin with there is, and always has been, quite a bit of rage in parts of the feminist movement.  True, much of this rage has traditionally been directed against men, but considering some of the limitations that have been put on women by men throughout history, I have to say that this is understandable.  I especially wouldn't blame women or feminism for a decline in technical endeavour, considering that women are still often discriminated against in the sciences and in technical fields.  Just recently this has been in the news in the form of certain academics proclaiming that science is not the place for women.  And if women are often not as competitive as men, you must understand that women were traditionally raised to believe that competitiveness is only for men - a lot of women are still raised that way today, told that they are to be conciliatory at all costs.  However, I know a heck of a lot of women who make the competitiveness of men look amateurish.  And shunning adventure?  I think there are some women astronauts, among many others, who would probably challenge that assertion.

In sum, it sounds to me like the program you watched took a few stereotypes of feminism and blew them all out of proportion.  Certainly the world I live in is not like that at all.

And if you want to blame someone for the transformation of the news into a gossip session (something I deplore, by the way), blame the media - which is still by and large controlled by men.  Which makes sense, considering that some of the biggest gossips I know are men.  But that's just my experience.  YMMV.


----------



## polymorphikos (Aug 24, 2005)

Sensible points, Littlemiss. 

Dreamwalker, if you would like to engage in a serious discussion of social and technological apathy or the changing face of gender roles, I'm all for it. But your post doesn't really hold much water. Most people simply don't care about adventure and discovery because it doesn't directly affect them or, more commonly (from those I talk to), because they believe we should fix things wrong with society and the enviroment first (a point with which it is hard to disagree).


----------



## dreamwalker (Aug 24, 2005)

”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> Um...I think you might be confusing feminism with feminization. Two different things, I think. I don't think feminism, especially in its 1960s incarnation, had much to do with softening anyone up.




Don’t get me wrong, im not an antifeminist - bash all lesbians to the ground kinda guy. And I never suggested or tried to propose that feminists originally intended to take over men and destroy mankind… (although to be politically correct, I have to say they could be capable of doing so if they wanted to 0.o). I wanted to bring some attention to the darker side of this feminisation, setting it as a possible cause to something I’ve noticed in society for some time.



			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> I feel bound to mention that some of the most vain men I know are of the macho-man type.


This is a big issue that the program touched on. Machoism, has been always an outward attempt to appear more attractive to other females, it was thought that women liked men who acted gallantly, flexed there muscle and generally dominated there surroundings. Added with this (mainly thanks to the female sexual revolution that followed feminism) women started to ask more from there men, looks became (a little) more important, hence this new outward attraction mechanism of “looking and smelling good” which started to become more apparent from the late 70s, especially as you starting you go higher within the social ladder. NBA players spend more on looking and smelling good a month than most working class in the USA earn a year.





			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> I also have to say that being a manly man [I hate that phrase - it sounds trite - but I can't think of any other way to put it] does not preclude being sensitive in the sense of being aware of and solicitous toward the feelings of others as opposed to charging around like an insensitive horse's behind.


 I consider myself to be aware and solicitous toward the feelings of others, but im not considered to be a “sensitive guy”. To be sensitive relates to how you react towards yours and other peoples feelings and it is this which has changed greatly over the last years. Feminism indirectly affected the children that where brought up by femisit parents or within a femisit society, mothers weren’t sure whether to tell there children to be gentlemanly or to treat girls the same as boys. There fathers still wore the trousers, but it was the mothers who told them which trousers to wear. Boys either grew up over compensating for this and becoming the ladies man, or the girly man with the role of the ‘Man’ being the provider disappearing into obscurity.






			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that many people in many parts of the world would agree with you on this. It is an extremely Eurocentric, US-centric, developed-world point of view.





			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

>


Sure
But its strange when you compare the less economically developed countries correlation to the percentage of women taking up those typically male roles? Iraq, Iran, Kazakhstan, India, Chad, Angola, Niger… All male dominated societies… All LEDC’s. And before you argue that these countries development is slower than the rest of the world, this is now beginning to change as priorities shift towards improving wealth fare states and pensions being the main worry of the MEDC's or more ecconomically countries.






			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> And if women are often not as competitive as men, you must understand that women were traditionally raised to believe that competitiveness is only for men - a lot of women are still raised that way today, told that they are to be conciliatory at all costs. However, I know a heck of a lot of women who make the competitiveness of men look amateurish. And shunning adventure? I think there are some women astronauts, among many others, who would probably challenge that assertion.


 I was actually thinking of the space shuttle captain who was a women who piloted Discovery on the recent NASA mission to the international space station when I wrote the original statement so I knew this would be coming. 
I’m a realist by nature and I will never accept an ideal or a stereotype as being the alpha and the omega, but I do believe that sometimes there accurate. It’s long been known that its our hormones that determine how competitive we are along with many of the traits we have (physical and psychological) as individuals irrespective of whether we be men or women. The hormones, important ones being Testosterone and Oestrogen are the main ones. Whether we have more of the other is determined by our sex, and whether we are more competitive, stronger, have bigger breasts, sensitive etc (it has recently been discovered that it changes the way we think.. eg, spatial/technical male brain vs the emotionally cognitive female brain) is determined by how much more of one hormone we have than the other… ya follow the logic pattern there? 
I myself an totally against telling someone what they can not do, but I do not believe that everyone is the same. "We are all different... but of equal value (in the eyes of god)"






			
				”littlemissattitude” said:
			
		

> And if you want to blame someone for the transformation of the news into a gossip session (something I deplore, by the way), blame the media - which is still by and large controlled by men.


Blaming the media in this way is like blaming a mirror for making you look ugly. The fact that female consumer power was one of my original issues, I’d find it hard to argue that these gossip magazines where/are created for men, mainly because that in traditionally male magazines, (GC, FHM, Loaded) there is virtually none of that gossip. If men really ‘cared’ about gossip more than women don’t you think those institutions would have caught on by now?





			
				”polymorphikos said:
			
		

> Most people simply don't care about adventure and discovery because it doesn't directly affect them or, more commonly (from those I talk to), because they believe we should fix things wrong with society and the enviroment first (a point with which it is hard to disagree).


Aren’t the true problems, the environment and society the new adventures and discoveries. You kind of prefixed my term into meaning one thing and only one thing and missing my greater point being how far are we actually advancing… 
Another point, didn’t improvements to humanity and society (however small they now seem) stem from through the great expansion periods during the industrial and information age? ^^I didn't vote for the green party, and apperently few people did in britions last elections...

Doesn’t doing one, in term automatically help the other…

I wanted to bring to attention a TV show, and find your opinions on the matter. There where alot more issuses discussed with all points of view taken. And I brought this argument here as it relates to the future, I mean, how will the world be in releation to feminism and the male/female power struggle and how will it effect mankind in the future as my comments really refer to the present.


----------



## dreamwalker (Aug 24, 2005)

I guess what I’m really trying to get at is, what if, for example a situation arose that tested humanity – totally hypothetical (and since I’m on a Science fiction and fantasy forum it isn’t too weird saying this I think?) 

What if some time in the future, say thousands of years from now, we enter war with another alien species. Would the intrinsically masculine traits that have allowed us to dominate all other species on this planet still be there? And how would this factor affect our will to survive?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 24, 2005)

It's too late tonight to get into your argument point by point. It's after 11 p.m. here and I've been up since 6:30 this morning, so I'm a bit tired. But I do have a couple of questions for you.

First, do you really equate feminism with lesbianism, as it seems in your comments? You said:




			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> Don’t get me wrong, im not an antifeminist - bash all lesbians to the ground kinda guy.




That's a huge stereotype, and not valid at all in my experience. Not anywhere near all the feminists I know are lesbians. And not all the lesbians I know are feminists.

And my other question. You said:



			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> What if some time in the future, say thousands of years from now, we enter war with another alien species. Would the intrinsically masculine traits that have allowed us to dominate all other species on this planet still be there? And how would this factor affect our will to survive?



Do you really believe that if the dominant form of society on Earth was matriarchy, some other species besides _Homo sapiens _would be the dominant species on Earth? And, have you ever seen a mother defend her children?

Oh, and just a comment before I go off to bed - I'm not a supporter of sociobiology, so I don't believe for a minute that we are slaves to our biology. Hormones are not destiny.

As for the rest, it will have to wait for another time.


----------



## Leto (Aug 24, 2005)

One thing is sure, is that your near invisible grey writing is threatening my sight.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Aug 24, 2005)

If this feminisation leads to a future when we no longer feel the need to drop bombs on each other, occupy countries that do not duplicate our own politics, or simply shoot people dead because of their skin colour, I would be willing to trade in the so-called 'spirit of adventure', although not without a feeling of some loss. 

Considering that female leaders like Indira Gandhi have actually been capable of pretty harsh, agressive political measures, I don't think its right to assume that a state lead by women will be incapable of dealing with alien invaders. Unless their weapons are just too superior, I suppose.


----------



## dreamwalker (Aug 24, 2005)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> It's too late tonight to get into your argument point by point. It's after 11 p.m. here and I've been up since 6:30 this morning, so I'm a bit tired. But I do have a couple of questions for you.
> 
> First, do you really equate feminism with lesbianism, as it seems in your comments? You said....
> That's a huge stereotype, and not valid at all in my experience. Not anywhere near all the feminists I know are lesbians. And not all the lesbians I know are feminists.



I know, infact that was a parody, i was tring to satirise the sterotype in a vein attempt to demontrate that I am against those types of views and ideals. 







			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that if the dominant form of society on Earth was matriarchy, some other species besides _Homo sapiens _would be the dominant species on Earth?


To be perfectly honest, I think probably not but I would appriciate anyone to argue for or against that argument.



			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> And, have you ever seen a mother defend her children?


No and its something I haven't considered until this point... maybe you could shead light on it... I do know however that "the way a women would protect her child" is very different to "the way a man would protect his family"




			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Oh, and just a comment before I go off to bed - I'm not a supporter of sociobiology, so I don't believe for a minute that we are slaves to our biology. Hormones are not destiny.


Fair enough, but check this out - 
*“The results are a fascinating insight into how testosterone and oestrogen levels in the womb can affect people’s choice of career and how these levels can show up in the length of fingers on our hands,”* said Dr Brosnan.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/fingerlength.htm . I watched a TV program on it recently, although I don't stand by it 100% I do find it very interesting. 
I'd like to know how long your index finger is 




			
				littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> As for the rest, it will have to wait for another time.


I'll be waiting


----------



## lazygun (Aug 24, 2005)

Michael Burke..The Man out of _Date_?.

What further proof of male domination is needed?.

Candyfloss t.v.


----------



## cyborg_cinema (Aug 25, 2005)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> ...to see that women were not pushed off into only a few acceptable roles - mother, elementary school teacher, nurse, secretary - but were able to follow their interests wherever they led.


...this seems essential—very important.


----------



## lucifer_principle (Aug 25, 2005)

Aside all this jiberish lets not forget that the more you like someone the more you will emulate them and men like women. Pre-enlightenment, pre-courtship, and pre- chivalry men did not appreciate women nor their enviroment.There you are. And remember the devil believes in you whether you don't or not so be good...now where did I put that bottle


----------

