4 ms·

Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a s

Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a strong independent person.

learc83 14y ago
>There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a strong independent person. No, but being strong interdependent person in modern civilization is different than living alone in the wilderness. It is inherently easier for a man to survive for years alone in the wilderness, without the aid of technology, than it is for a woman. The extra size, strength, and endurance is handy.
Xcelerate 14y ago
> Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? There's absolutely nothing sexist at all about the post. It was a compliment, geez. > Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? No, men are generally stronger than women; it's why we have different classifications in sports. Would you rather we lumped them together?
- seldo 14y ago
  Complimenting a woman by saying she's like a man is pretty much the definition of sexism.
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    Sheesh... Let me translate the post for you: "This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman". I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.
    - seldo 14y ago
      I know that's what you meant. Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits. That implication is sexism. Whether or not you think sexism is insulting -- and it appears you do not -- it was definitely sexism. And other people find sexism insulting.
      - Xcelerate 14y ago
        > Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you made. Among male traits, strength has historically been prestigious. How on earth is that implying female-only traits are inferior? Give me a first-order logic chain or something here because I'm not seeing the inferences. > Whether or not you think sexism is insulting I do think sexism is insulting. His post was not sexism.
      - RivieraKid 14y ago
        That's reality. There are traits that men are better at. And the same applies for women. If someone finds reality insulting, it could be their problem.
    - untog 14y ago
      But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so. What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".
      - Xcelerate 14y ago
        If I took an opinion poll (appropriately administered in, say, the US) on who has the more accurate translation of the original post, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority would say mine. Here is the juxtaposition of the original post and your inference by the way: > This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now absolutely ALONE? One word: Wow. > Being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing.
- untog 14y ago
  But you yourself have assumed that 'man' == 'strong'. The OP said nothing of the sort. That in itself is pretty sexist. Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?
  - Xcelerate 14y ago
    > Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist. No, you're missing this completely. Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued separately in its own classification (men and women race separately). However, the fact that my sister was good enough to actually compete with the men (who are overall much faster than women), came across as a compliment. I would go so far as to invoke "isomorphic" as the most apt term in describing the type of compliment involved in mine and scrapcode's scenarios. > Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best. Useless at best? I see this phrase a lot on the internet lately, and it must be a fad because it wasn't in popular usage a few years ago. Men and women have different traits. It is a completely, scientifically, undeniable fact. Men will be better at certain skills, and women will be better at other skills. The latest social trend cannot change that. If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL, great for her, we'd all be glad to see that! But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are ridiculously stacked against her being capable of doing such a thing. Maybe start a separate women's NFL? Alright, but since no one's done that, let's use common sense and say football is a man's sport. What is an activity that's typically only associated with females only: ballet dancers. Sure, there are male ballet dancers but until the ratio is close to 50/50, the term "ballet dancer" will continue to be associated with females, and for good reason.
    - untog 14y ago
      (I had edited my comment so that your quote doesn't apply any more- apologies) This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort. You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist. To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?

Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a strong independent person.

learc83 14y ago

>There's nothing inherently 'manly' about being a strong independent person. No, but being strong interdependent person in modern civilization is different than living alone in the wilderness. It is inherently easier for a man to survive for years alone in the wilderness, without the aid of technology, than it is for a woman. The extra size, strength, and endurance is handy.

Xcelerate 14y ago

> Not to start drama, but that's a bit sexist, isn't it? There's absolutely nothing sexist at all about the post. It was a compliment, geez. > Can't she just be 'stronger than any person you know'? No, men are generally stronger than women; it's why we have different classifications in sports. Would you rather we lumped them together?

seldo 14y ago
Complimenting a woman by saying she's like a man is pretty much the definition of sexism.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Sheesh... Let me translate the post for you: "This woman is so good that a certain physical difference between genders that has historically been regarded a prestigious male trait can be made even more of a compliment by giving it to a woman". I don't understand the obsession I find online of people searching for insults and controversies that don't exist.
  - seldo 14y ago
    I know that's what you meant. Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits. That implication is sexism. Whether or not you think sexism is insulting -- and it appears you do not -- it was definitely sexism. And other people find sexism insulting.
    - Xcelerate 14y ago
      > Regarding male-only traits as prestigious implies that they are superior to female-only traits Nope. It in no way implies that. That was an assumption you made. Among male traits, strength has historically been prestigious. How on earth is that implying female-only traits are inferior? Give me a first-order logic chain or something here because I'm not seeing the inferences. > Whether or not you think sexism is insulting I do think sexism is insulting. His post was not sexism.
    - RivieraKid 14y ago
      That's reality. There are traits that men are better at. And the same applies for women. If someone finds reality insulting, it could be their problem.
  - untog 14y ago
    But what you've translated isn't what the post said. You are inferring that the OP was talking about the physical differences that favour a man in that situation. If that's what they meant, they should have said so. What the post actually says is "being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing".
    - Xcelerate 14y ago
      If I took an opinion poll (appropriately administered in, say, the US) on who has the more accurate translation of the original post, I would bet a large sum of money that the vast majority would say mine. Here is the juxtaposition of the original post and your inference by the way: > This is absolutely amazing. This woman is more of a man than any man I know, living in some desolate valley for all of those years now absolutely ALONE? One word: Wow. > Being a man is a good thing, this woman is being manly as opposed to being womanly, and this is a great thing.
untog 14y ago
But you yourself have assumed that 'man' == 'strong'. The OP said nothing of the sort. That in itself is pretty sexist. Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best, and insulting at worst. I might just as easily say that a rapist was "more of a man than any man I know"- after all, men tend to commit acts of rape far more than women, so it's a manly attribute, right?
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist. No, you're missing this completely. Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued separately in its own classification (men and women race separately). However, the fact that my sister was good enough to actually compete with the men (who are overall much faster than women), came across as a compliment. I would go so far as to invoke "isomorphic" as the most apt term in describing the type of compliment involved in mine and scrapcode's scenarios. > Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best. Useless at best? I see this phrase a lot on the internet lately, and it must be a fad because it wasn't in popular usage a few years ago. Men and women have different traits. It is a completely, scientifically, undeniable fact. Men will be better at certain skills, and women will be better at other skills. The latest social trend cannot change that. If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL, great for her, we'd all be glad to see that! But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are ridiculously stacked against her being capable of doing such a thing. Maybe start a separate women's NFL? Alright, but since no one's done that, let's use common sense and say football is a man's sport. What is an activity that's typically only associated with females only: ballet dancers. Sure, there are male ballet dancers but until the ratio is close to 50/50, the term "ballet dancer" will continue to be associated with females, and for good reason.
  - untog 14y ago
    (I had edited my comment so that your quote doesn't apply any more- apologies) This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort. You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist. To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?