'I'm probably going to get hated from this...'

[conquistaDan]

Interesting topic. I have thoughts.

warning I'm going to gethatred from this, but I don't care. I've wanted to say this for a long time and I finally found a thread to do it on:
Over the course of a few months I've been debating on alot of stuff on what kinds of jobs men should do, and what kind of jobs ONLY woman should do. I know it's sexest I don't give a flying fuck.

Here's my list:
Men should:
Anything computer oriented, labor oriented, corporate ownership or running of a company, and generally sweaty or hardworking things. Also anything law oriented.(cop, judge, lawyer etc)

Men shouldn't:
chef (anything involving cooking of food)
media related things-acting, singing, playing in a band of some kind(ownership of a media related company is fine)dancing, hosting a show(directing a movie is also something that I think is manly and ok to do, thats fine)

Teaching is a different field considering professors teach things that are needed and grade school teachers don't. Soo, I don't know about that one

My view on females is that they shouldn't be doing anything in the labor field. But we all know they already do it and I can't say no to that. Just wrong. Anything for woman in the men should not do category is also fine.


thats my take

[Assertn]

words

Yeah, you're pretty much gonna get hatred for this.

[complich8]

wow ... just ... wow.

Let's compare and contrast. My view is that men and women should be able to pursue careers and occupations doing whatever it is they either like to do or are capable of doing, based entirely on their capabilities and aptitudes.

For example, I believe that women shouldn't be firefighters unless they're particularly physically strong. But I also don't think that men should be able to be firefighters unless they're physically fit and strong enough to carry a reasonably large person. In other words, the standard for entry to firefighting is based on physical strength, which is something that naturally biases the profession towards men. However, this doesn't preclude women from meeting that standard and thus gaining entry into the profession.

Similarly, how the hell would you make a reasonably convincing movie with no male actors? How can you claim that there's no value in male musicians? What the hell sort of music do you listen to? What movies are you watching? Or are you sitting in a cave with an internet connection wishing that you lived in a version of 1530, only with computers? You're basically advocating the destruction of all extrinsic forms of entertainment...

Some of the best professors, scientists, programmers, lawyers, doctors, managers and directors I've known are women. The world as a whole would be greatly diminished without them doing what they do.

What a sad, sad world you want to live in.

[Yukimura]

Well it'll mostly be hatred from men he probably don't respect anyway since there are all of maybe 5 girls around here that post often.

Anyway, not out of hate but curiosity, why shouldn't a man be a professional chef? The greatest chefs have traditionally been men, and that was part of the reason why it used to be such a big deal to eat at a fancy restauraunt. Because a highly trained male chef would be preparing the food instead of some housewife who can only cook what she was taught by her mom.

[Board of Command]

Interesting topic. I have thoughts.

warning I'm going to gethatred from this, but I don't care. I've wanted to say this for a long time and I finally found a thread to do it on:
Over the course of a few months I've been debating on alot of stuff on what kinds of jobs men should do, and what kind of jobs ONLY woman should do. I know it's sexest I don't give a flying fuck.

Here's my list:
Men should:
Anything computer oriented, labor oriented, corporate ownership or running of a company, and generally sweaty or hardworking things. Also anything law oriented.(cop, judge, lawyer etc)

Men shouldn't:
chef (anything involving cooking of food)
media related things-acting, singing, playing in a band of some kind(ownership of a media related company is fine)dancing, hosting a show(directing a movie is also something that I think is manly and ok to do, thats fine)

Teaching is a different field considering professors teach things that are needed and grade school teachers don't. Soo, I don't know about that one

My view on females is that they shouldn't be doing anything in the labor field. But we all know they already do it and I can't say no to that. Just wrong. Anything for woman in the men should not do category is also fine.


thats my take

Aside from the cooking part, I agree wholeheartedly.

[conquistaDan]

wow ... just ... wow.

Let's compare and contrast. My view is that men and women should be able to pursue careers and occupations doing whatever it is they either like to do or are capable of doing, based entirely on their capabilities and aptitudes.

For example, I believe that women shouldn't be firefighters unless they're particularly physically strong. But I also don't think that men should be able to be firefighters unless they're physically fit and strong enough to carry a reasonably large person. In other words, the standard for entry to firefighting is based on physical strength, which is something that naturally biases the profession towards men. However, this doesn't preclude women from meeting that standard and thus gaining entry into the profession.

Ok, on this note. I would have no problem at all watching a movie filled only with woman. And any guy who says no to this, to me i label gay or questionable. At least a couple of movies.



My main point is that being an actor isn't deserving of the fame as much as a scientist should be. Watching actors walk down the red carpet makes me sick. Scientists should be taking those walks for curing illness' and world problems. Or solving a great mystery of some kind for the past.


My point being. They provide nothing to the world other than sitting in a movie theater for $10 a ticket. Thats all.


@Yuki:
Let me rephrase what I was saying about the chef. I can let this one slide because they're providing sustenance of food, to society through creativity and hard work. Thats fine with me.


All of you have to understand though. I'm looking at all of these careers through a business point of view. First of all my parents are from the "old country". So i view jobs in America a little differently.(ie, labor intensive things or like I've been saying jobs that provide actual services to society for the better of a society)

Plus I've been running a company for over a year now. So studying business to me is like the only thing I see as the most beneficial to a society that no other job can top, ever. I say thing because business owners (large and small) give jobs to the world. Nothing beats that in terms of giving back to a society. And anyone who disagrees with me should talk to an investor or a business owner sometime.


Thats all I wanted to get across to everyone. Not start a flame war.

[Y]

Thats all I wanted to get across to everyone. Not start a flame war.

Yeah, that's why the first line of your reply is "Anyone who disagrees with me is gay." Not trying to start anything there, are you chief?

[Honoko]

My view on females is that they shouldn't be doing anything in the labor field. But we all know they already do it and I can't say no to that. Just wrong. Anything for woman in the men should not do category is also fine.

I need to come out of the lurking shadows to do this:

BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!

........

BWAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!1!

Oh conquistaDan, you silly silly man.

**returns to lurking...

[XanBcoo]

All of you have to understand though. I'm looking at all of these careers through a business point of view. First of all my parents are from the "old country". So i view jobs in America a little differently.(ie, labor intensive things or like I've been saying jobs that provide actual services to society for the better of a society)

I don't really see what any of this has to do with men and women.

What you seem to be saying is "Jobs that provide a service for the betterment of society deserve more praise than jobs that provide entertainment." which is totally true!! But that has absolutely nothing to do with men and women's roles in the workforce. Why does it necessarily make a man gay if he can play the guitar like a demon and makes money because of it? Why shouldn't women be allowed to cure cancer? Who does it affect and who gives a shit?

[Board of Command]

Plus I've been running a company for over a year now. So studying business to me is like the only thing I see as the most beneficial to a society that no other job can top, ever. I say thing because business owners (large and small) give jobs to the world. Nothing beats that in terms of giving back to a society. And anyone who disagrees with me should talk to an investor or a business owner sometime.


Thats all I wanted to get across to everyone. Not start a flame war.

I agreed with you until this. Now that just doesn't make sense anymore.

[conquistaDan]

I agreed with you until this. Now that just doesn't make sense anymore.

Why did this last post change your mind? Am I wrong? Ultimately giving jobs back to people is the greatest giveback a human can make to a society. And cancer can't be cured unless a team of doctors is HIRED, to investigate an illness by a hospital that was probably started by a billionaire or some kind of wealth being reinserted back into a nation or town.


@XanBcoo:
You missed my point again. I wasn't saying that it has something to do in the workforce. I was saying that because of the fact that entertainment doesn't really provide anything to a societies building, theres no point in doing it for a job or getting paid for it. A man can play a guitar as much as he wants and sing too. Hell I even do it. But do it as a hobby in private. Getting money for it is living off of something that isn't worth placing into a societies well being, or making it better per say. Thats what I meant. And to answer your gender question. Anyone can cure anything they want.

My main point:
Everyone should try to make a society better. Especially in America or as representation of what living in the US means. But the males of the society should support(through careers) or give back, something great to the or county or given area they live in. It shows something great can be done as a man. And it should always be that way. Shouldn't men always set a good example?Give back and protect?Yes they always should. And the best way to do that is by being in a field that can give back to the world in a big way most beneficial to everyone. A rock band can't do that. Neither can an actor(no matter how many Oscars he or she has)

[complich8]

I'll try to make this succinct...
(1) Art contributes to society.
(2) Not everyone has the capacity to contribute to science or your other "masculine" fields.
(3) Lead by example, not prescription. Until you have contributed to society in a substantial, positive and meaningful way, you have no room to pontificate about the subject. So where's your PhD?
(4) None of the points you're trying to make have anything to do with why you think women can't do "male" careers. This is a non-sequitur.

[Y]

You have absolute no right, moral or intellectual ground or authority to judge what is or is not beneficial to society. Grow up and stop posting about your misogynistic dumbass shit.

[conquistaDan]

I'll try to make this succinct...
(1) Art contributes to society.
(2) Not everyone has the capacity to contribute to science or your other "masculine" fields.
(3) Lead by example, not prescription. Until you have contributed to society in a substantial, positive and meaningful way, you have no room to pontificate about the subject. So where's your PhD?
(4) None of the points you're trying to make have anything to do with why you think women can't do "male" careers. This is a non-sequitur.

1)Yes it does. But only if you give me an explanation on how. It's only fair since you guys put me through this bull shit.(and I didn't mention art, did I, nor did I say it doesn't contribute)
2)I don't set defined rules as to what I think people can and can't contribute. Nor did I say they have to fit the rules of being "masculine"
3)Contribute in my own way huh? So no matter how many people in my community I hire? Only a PhD will suffice?
4) well thats fantastic because I never said anything about woman not being able to. I said the exact opposite. And you were the ones saying I thought girls can't do anything men can't. You turned my words around.

[Assertn]

Dude....just stop.....

You're just going to get more neg reps

[Yukimura]

(3) Lead by example, not prescription. Until you have contributed to society in a substantial, positive and meaningful way, you have no room to pontificate about the subject. So where's your PhD?

I agree with your other three points but this one isn't fair. If he is a small business owner then he is probably providing some kind of service to whatever little area of society he deals with and that shouldn't be ignored. And while I sense plenty of sarcasm in your last comment I still have to disagree with the idea that "Only the elite may question the status quo". Highly educated people tend to be capable of making good long-term decisions, but that doesn't mean not so well educated people are incapable of analyzing a situation and postulating a viable solution.

That being said conquistaDan the way you phrased your original post seems to say that the jobs that "ONLY women should do" are somehow inferior or unimportant. You also clearly state you don't think women should not be involved in what you identify as 'real work' which seems to imply you don't think they are suited for it. [Flame On]You also aren't very good at framing an argument anyway so you shouldn't be surprised you were misunderstood[FlameOff]

As to your clarified main point, I would agree that people might as well pull their own weight and give back to society in some way that is meaningful (I'm not going to touch the definition of meaningful because I don't have a Ph.D or a small buisness) but I wouldn't give women a pass to just be carried and supported by men either. And instead of just trying to undermine people's responses why don't you also defend your own points, that's one of the big differences between a discussion and a flame session.

[Board of Command]

Why did this last post change your mind? Am I wrong? Ultimately giving jobs back to people is the greatest giveback a human can make to a society. And cancer can't be cured unless a team of doctors is HIRED, to investigate an illness by a hospital that was probably started by a billionaire or some kind of wealth being reinserted back into a nation or town.

(4) None of the points you're trying to make have anything to do with why you think women can't do "male" careers. This is a non-sequitur.

What complich8 said.

[complich8]

Note: this is getting way off-topic for the bitching thread, so I'm going to split it off into its own thing.

Well, succinct didn't work out too well, let's try long this time

I'll start here:

I agree with your other three points but this one isn't fair. If he is a small business owner then he is probably providing some kind of service to whatever little area of society he deals with and that shouldn't be ignored. And while I sense plenty of sarcasm in your last comment I still have to disagree with the idea that "Only the elite may question the status quo". Highly educated people tend to be capable of making good long-term decisions, but that doesn't mean not so well educated people are incapable of analyzing a situation and postulating a viable solution.

You're right, that wasn't really a fair point. It's important for everyone to question the status-quo, it's not something just for the elites (whom the status quo most often favors, hence them being elite... by definition).

However, calling being a chef or an actor a socially insignificant job while calling a small business owner socially significant isn't exactly fair either. Especially given that the one making that distinction has a conflict of interest, namely that he's artificially grouping himself in the "good" category without really defining a valid reason for that distinction.

My point isn't that PhD's give you a pass to prescribe what's right for the world, but rather that nothing at all (PhD or otherwise) gives you the right to claim that your belief is superior to another without valid justification -- something which I didn't see any of.

1)Yes it does. But only if you give me an explanation on how. It's only fair since you guys put me through this bull shit.(and I didn't mention art, did I, nor did I say it doesn't contribute)

Acting and music-making are forms (i.e.: a subset of the concept) of art. Humans need downtime, entertainment, relaxation. Culture is a form of social value, and art (as acting, as painting, as music, as literature) is the currency of culture.

You excoriate actors as a singular example of things that men shouldn't do. But you don't single out anything about acting itself, rather you make comments which generalize to all art. Thus, you are declaring art socially worthless and relegate it to "hobby-only" status.

And yet here you're not standing behind that claim, because you're clearly conceding that art isn't worthless. So then, is it only worthless if a man does it?

I feel like this is a contradictory attitude to hold. If art is only valid as a hobby, then it follows that art is not contributory to society. But you assert that art is contributory to society. A implies B. Not B. Therefore Not A thanks modus tollens!. Or would you assert that acting and music aren't art? If that's the case, then we could easily fork this discussion to a question of aesthetics (ie: "What is art?")... but that's totally beside the point.

I would have no problem at all watching a movie filled only with woman. And any guy who says no to this, to me i label gay or questionable.

Is this just a strong instance of objectification? I suppose watching straight porn instead of all-lesbian porn also makes you gay because there's dicks involved that aren't yours.

I don't know what sort of movies you like, but I don't think a woman could pull off Bruce Willis's Die Hard role in any sort of believable way. And Die Hard is a very, very male-oriented movie. Not to mention that women don't play convincing world war 2 soldiers, because they weren't.

There's only so many movies you can weave around an all-female cast, considering you basically have to exclude romance, children, and the vast majority of history and literature. What's left? Lifetime TV. Go watch some now, and enlighten yourself as to the utter banality of watching "strengthening the mother-daughter bond" for the seventeenth time.


Further, what's wrong with being gay? You do realize that like, somewhere between 1 and 10 percent of the population is gay (depending on where you get your statistics), and that they don't have a whole lot of choice in the matter (unless you don't buy into things like ... err ... science).

2)I don't set defined rules as to what I think people can and can't contribute. Nor did I say they have to fit the rules of being "masculine"

No, but you are saying that there is a singular objective standard to which men (and only men) must aspire to in order to be acceptable as men, which includes the type of career they go into as well as apparently what they like viewing and consuming in their downtime.

I agree that everyone should aspire to be the most positive person they can be. But that's not just men, and it's not the same for all men. Some men are better exemplars of positive members of society doing things that are traditionally relegated to women. Some women are better members of society doing jobs that are traditionally men's.

3)Contribute in my own way huh? So no matter how many people in my community I hire? Only a PhD will suffice?

So you're saying you contribute if you're hiring people who don't fit your criteria for contribution? A PhD is a certification that you've contributed positively to the field of science. Not the only way to contribute, but certainly one of the hardest to discard.

Now, consider for a moment whether the people you're employing are also meeting the standard you want to hold them to? Do they contribute to the good of society? Or is their contribution to the good of society their mere existence and the support of their families? Realizing that most employees in most careers are essentially replaceable parts, you have to ask yourself if creating employment is in and of itself an inherent good?

If employment itself -- having a job, participating in the economy, and being a functioning member of society -- is an inherent good, then why shouldn't males be able to do so in any way that works for them? Why can't I, as a man, be a musician, if that's what I excel at? Why can't I be a chef? What if, like Tom Cruise, I make a better actor than anything else? If I'm an incredible ballet dancer, why can't I dance ballet? Or are you saying I can, but just not as a profession?

And if employment itself isn't an inherent good, then how can you claim that your employing people is a contribution to society?

Further, why can't I be a stay-at-home dad if my wife has a better-paying career that can support both of us? In particular given my own developmental psychology background? Is raising a cohesive and functional family and producing children who will be healthy, productive members of society not of higher value than pursuing some dated concept of masculine propriety via rigidly-defined gender roles?

I'm not saying "a man should be able to lie around the house all day if his wife's loaded", mind you. Rather, I'm saying that families (which are permanent) are more important than careers (which are growing ever more transient), and that for the first several years of a child's life it's more important that they have a parent around nurturing their development than parents in a higher tax bracket. A man living solely off of a woman's income without being a significant contributor to home and family is precisely as despicable as a woman doing the same, in my opinion.

(but even then, there's a distinction to draw between a homemaker and a leech, and I couldn't presume to pass so harsh a judgment on a person without strong evidence that they were in fact being a gold-digging parasite and not contributing to their spouse's interests and wellbeing or at least pursuing their own personal improvement)

4) well thats fantastic because I never said anything about woman not being able to. I said the exact opposite. And you were the ones saying I thought girls can't do anything men can't. You turned my words around.

But wait ...

My view on females is that they shouldn't be doing anything in the labor field. ... Just wrong. Anything for woman in the men should not do category is also fine.

Am I missing something here? Whatever you say after this point doesn't change the fact that you want to pigeonhole men into "male" careers and women into "non-male" careers. You try to claim "it's ok" for women to work but at the same time you assert that it's "Just wrong". This is a contradiction. It's either acceptable or it's not. So which is it?

Or are you perhaps saying that what there is a space within the realm of socially acceptable that's not morally acceptable? But if social acceptability and moral acceptability are divergent sets, then what is it that describes these sets? And if you have divergent moral codes, then what can you do about it?

But the part I skipped over with ellipses (ie: the contradiction) says that you believe that social rights take precedence over non-universal morality. If this is the case, then why isn't the social right to pursue happiness via whatever occupation you want included in this priority?

[Mut]

Comp just wasted like 10 minutes typing away a legit, lengthy post to someone who won't read past the first few sentences.

[Board of Command]

Wow comp...WAY TOOOOOO LONG!