>Gender roles are a problem because they mean that anyone who doesn't fit into them nicely gets screwed over. This affects, oooh, probably pretty much everyone because the odds of someone matching up with them exactly in every possible regard are pretty damn low.
Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"
How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."
>Is the pursuit of equality really something you think of as strange or outdated?
Labeling your ideology with glittering generalities like the "pursuit of equality" doesn't change the substance. "Equality" was traditionally understood to be "equality under the law" not some vague "social equality" where all social distinctions must be erased.
"Feminism" is clearly not about men and women being equal under the law.
>feminism is a social movement that only works when it is widely understood
Feminism is widely understood. Feminists, like most cultural leftists, simply assume that anyone who rejects their ideology doesn't "understand it."
Our understanding of your ideology is precisely the reason we reject it.
Leftist ideology clearly has its roots in secularized Judeo-Christianity. We all have the "original sin" of racism/sexism/etc. we must be redeemed of, and the world is "torn" and must be tikkun-olamed to be "fixed" by a priest class of activists.
>There are people fighting traditional gender roles. But then you get called a feminazi by people who don't want change.
People who embrace our traditions get called "troglodytes" "fascists" "nazis" "sexists" and the like by cultural Marxists, moralistic activists, and other fanatics.
>Come over to feminism. We're fighting for everyone to have the same opertunities.
No thanks. Feminism, like religion, should be kept to one's self. Stop trying to proselytize. You may be surprised to learn how little many people care about your 20th century social ideologies.
>One way to cure this symptom of patriarchy is to try to stop being a 'troglodyte' as you put it.
"Patriarchy?" Cultural Marxism went out in the 1970s. "Troglodyte?" As a metaphor for a man who works and takes care of his wife and children?
"Ignorant?" No one is "ignorant" of cultural Marxist screeds about "sexism" and "patriarchy." Plenty of people are quite knowledgeable on these issues, but simply reject your kind's often-strange morality and attempts to remake society to conform to bizarre sociological notions from the last century.
Really, burning bras is so last century. Get with the times.
The pejorative usage of "brogrammer" is more like "a programmer who displays all the worst characteristics normally associated with high school jocks" -- things like arrogance, misogyny, bullying, and unwarranted aggression
Who associates these characteristics with "high school jocks" and who assumes these are negative characteristics?
Arrogance (i.e., a superior male) misogyny (i.e., a man who the woman I lust after has sex with) bullying (i.e., a man who is socially superior than me) and unwarranted aggression (i.e., a male who out-competes me).
Sound like "brogrammer" means "I really envy this superior man."
"A popular, cool, or otherwise normal person who has become intrigued by the fun of programming. Usually unliked by the nerdy programmers for getting all of the friends and the girls, while creating cool and useful applications."
Was that meant to be an insult?
One has to wonder if "male feminists" and "nice guys" share the same delusion that "white knighting" females will increase their sexual success, and advocating "more women in tech" is an excuse to have potential mates in closer proximity, and has nothing to do with any moral crusade or actual benefit for the tech industry itself?
One wonders if "male feminists" are simply trying to compensate for their personal deficiencies?
This is actually something I think will go away once we manage to overcome sexism in society. There is really no reason for it at all.
My subjective impression of you and your "anti-sexism" is that you are an ideological fanatic. Fortunately, it's not likely that you and your kind will ever "overcome sexism in society" and it's likely that public restrooms will remain segregated by gender.
Your understanding of the differences between the sexes seems based more on ideological, abstract categories than practical, biologically based considerations, which is often the case with ideological and religious fanaticism.
In my opinion, your "anti-sexism" is just rehashed, 20th century cultural Marxism that is fortunately becoming less popular. I hope we can all progress beyond such failed, politically and religiously motivated trends.
"I think for the sake of civilization, we should try to involve women as much as we can and aim for the 50-50."
I think for the sake of civilization, we should not try to aim for a 50/50 ratio. Your utopia is another person's dystopia. Not all of us share your morality.
Competent men do not 'show of their skills, brag and one-up other men'.
Yes they most certainly do.
Yes, they may be technically competent, but they are socially incompetent, because they never progressed beyond that juvenile behavior.
Ok, now you have admitted that technically competent men may in fact exhibit those behaviors, so now you're saying they are "socially incompetent." You are wrong in both cases, highly competent men who show off their skills, brag, and dominate other men tend to be very socially competent. In fact, this sort of display is very much a demonstration of social competence.
Obviously, juveniles do this is a different way than adults, but the pattern of behavior is the same. It is also often the case that men who are being shown up will try to "tear down" the dominant male by labelling his behavior "juvenile" or trying to change the nature of the competition to something he's better at.
One might paraphrase: "sure, he's highly competent, adept at showing his skills, and is clearly superior to me at this particular activity. But he's such a show-off!"
Do you actually compare a desire to get more women into tech with forced castration?!
Did you actually read that comment as comparing the "desire to get more women into tech" with castration?
You really didn't understand that the castration reference was to a "simple technical fix" for typical male behavior, and that the reference is what is often called "hyperbole?"
You really misunderstood not only what was being compared to castration, but also the tone in which the reference was made?
Wasn't the term "computer" at one time used to describe usually female mathematicians who worked in all female groups at DoD?
Perhaps the problem isn't women, and it isn't men, but instead the urge to force them together and then demand they suppress their natural gender differences?
Based on experience I would guess having gender segregated groups of technical workers could be quite productive. But anyone trying would immediately be hit by lawsuits from the discrimination lawyers.
Too much drama. Too much shit to cope with, that involves dicks and egos.
Absolutely, and from the other side, forcing a man into a mostly female group is going to drive him crazy with what he perceives to be the petty female group dynamics.
Do you have any evidence of gender roles so specific and enforced so strictly that "pretty much everyone" gets "screwed over" for not matching up with them exactly in "every possible regard?"
How do you account for all the people, perhaps a majority, who don't seem to have any problem with traditional gender roles, but in fact, embrace them? They don't seem to feel they are being "screwed over."