newly single

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by driveway

VASTLY. In every possible way it's better. I can't think of a single way in which 'family life' is less successful than ever before.

Well I don't think a single parent environment is the best place for kids to be...

The stats are showing it. Lower marriage rates, birth rates etc. It is a terrible cycle that modern feminism has had a hand in.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well I don't think a single parent environment is the best place for kids to be...

The stats are showing it. Lower marriage rates, birth rates etc. It is a terrible cycle that modern feminism has had a hand in.

Which is better: a single parent home, or a dual parent home where the parents don't love each other?

And how are lower marriage rates and lower birth rates a "terrible cycle"?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

I think this is so true. There wasn't some magical formula to marriage "back then". I just think as Troutman said, people hid their problems, divorce, marriage counselling, or any other counselling for that matter had too much of a stigma attached to them.

That and as my mother once said, people were often ostricised by the community. You kept whatever problems you had to yourself and didn't tell anyone. My mothers mother often helped people in need but at the same time was very careful about who knew what she did. She always had an extra room in the house for battered women looking for a place to stay while they found somewhere else to live.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well I don't think a single parent environment is the best place for kids to be...

The stats are showing it. Lower marriage rates, birth rates etc. It is a terrible cycle that modern feminism has had a hand in.

With the amount of people I've met that shouldn't be married/shouldn't have kids/shouldn't have been born, I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by blankall

Biology most certainly does influence female vs. male behaviour.

I am not saying that society doesn't play a role, but genders have natural tendencies to drift towards certain behaviours.

Good examples are ape society. Ape society, is the human state without sociological nurturing. An ultra aggressive alpha male leading a harem of females. Society invents concepts like monogamy, women's rights, etc...

Another good example is the effect of testosterone on behaviour. Give someone massive amounts of testosterone and it will make them violent, aggressive, and selfish. Give someone estrogen and they will get more passive.

Very true, however, it doesn't make masculinity or femininity anymore right or desirable. It's just how our species managed to reproduce most productively. It's still arbitrary. There should be no societal measures or pressure for people to conform to a certain gender.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't think families were any less dysfunctional in the 1950s. Everything was just hidden then - alcoholism, physical and mental abuse, adultery etc. People just did not get divorced (when maybe they should have), and there was not much help available in the community.

This is accurate to some extent.

I think families tended to stay together because of societal pressure, and "for the sake of the kids". I think also churches played a part, hence the slogan: "the family that prays together stays together". In many respects, life was a lot simpler and less complicated.

I think there were a lot of pressures on marriages in those days also. As I recall there was no real middle class as we know it today, and there were often arguments about money. Also many were messed up because of the Depression and the War.

To get divorced in those days was very difficult. Either the husband or wife had to admit to adultery, and many acts were staged in order to make it happen.

With regard to modern dysfunctionality, I think it relates more to an increase in commonlaw relationships (with or without children) single parent families (mostly women, divorced or otherwise) etc. which have taken the place of the nuclear family. My wife taught grade 2 in the 80's and 90's in Calgary, and one year 23 of her 25 students were from single parent families.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Regorium

What progress is left for women to make here in North America? Note: This is clearly only applicable to NORTH AMERICA (ie. Canada/USA, maybe the UK) and NOT the rest of the world. Feminism did a LOT of great things in the past that was rightfully deserved, but their time has long gone.

This is feminism today: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...he-daddy.thtml

It is very clearly no longer about equality. Today, feminism is about earning more for working less. It's about gaining positions of power when it is undeserved. It's about forcing social change that is counter to biological tendencies (ie. wanting fat to be the new beautiful, or marketing things to people that don't want them). Today's version of feminism is useless, and should rightfully be shamed.

Yep, and modern day Islam is all about terrorism. Way to take an extreme point of view and label and entire progressive movement with it. The only thing you just proved is your own ignorance.

How about the wage and corporate hierarchy discrepancies between men and women? Ever notice the massive discrepancies between the amount of male and female elected representatives? Domestic violence, pro-choice, rape, etc. are all issues that are addressed by "modern feminism." But you're right, none of those issues have any relevance in North America.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

This is accurate to some extent.

I think families tended to stay together because of societal pressure, and "for the sake of the kids". I think also churches played a part, hence the slogan: "the family that prays together stays together". In many respects, life was a lot simpler and less complicated.

LOL. I quit reading after this. What a crock.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by driveway

Masculinity and Femininity are almost entirely socially constructed and Feminism is one of the most valuable political and social ideologies in history. It is the sister of Democracy and has contributed to the advancement of society in innumerable ways.

Clinging to an outdated idea that "masculine" and "feminine" have any inherent meaning or value is destructive and ignorant.

This is in fact a very out-dated belief that has proven to be false. There was a baby boy that, due to an accident during his circumcision, lost his penis. At the time, Dr. John Money had the theory that gender was socialized and that within the first two years, a child's mind was malleable and one could be taught to grow up as either a boy or girl. Because of this, Bruce Reimer (the infant that had lost his penis) was castrated and his parents were told to raise him as a girl. He was given a surgically contructed vagina along with estrogen pills and Bruce became Brenda. If you know anything about this story, then you know that it was a complete failure. The child rejected the belief that he was a girl, displaying male "masculine" behaviour long before he was ever made aware that he was born a boy and he eventually had surgery to change his gender back. Gender is not socialized.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yep, and modern day Islam is all about terrorism. Way to take an extreme point of view and label and entire progressive movement with it. The only thing you just proved is your own ignorance.

Sure...

How about the wage and corporate hierarchy discrepancies between men and women?

Wage gap? Maybe 20 years ago - again, feminists have done great work here and got equal pay legislated. Here's a link to something a bit more current than looking at 50 year olds when discrimination was rampant and claiming that there is a wage gap:

http://www.time.com/time/business/ar...ml#ixzz0yNZTU4

Corporate Hierarchy? Yup, again, 20 years ago. Things take time to trickle down. There are no "glass ceilings" in today's corporate world, and as more qualified women move through the ranks (as again, men have a 50 year head start on them), you will see the numbers naturally equalize.

Ever notice the massive discrepancies between the amount of male and female elected representatives?

Are there any barriers to women entering politics? Nope. It's not society's fault that so far, they've produced politicians like Sarah Palin and Barbara Higgins. There's increasing numbers of female leaders all over the world. This is another thing where there is no longer an inequality, yet it does take time for policies to filter through the system.

Domestic violence, pro-choice, rape, etc. are all issues that are addressed by "modern feminism." But you're right, none of those issues have any relevance in North America.

Domestic violence and rape are both issues that are addressed by the courts. If Canada or the USA do not recognize domestic violence or rape as crimes (as is the case in other parts of the world), then I would say that it is a feminist issue. However, it is not.

Pro-choice - you know what? I will concede this to you. This is one area that I guess feminists should still fight for because there are legislated imbalances that I did not think of.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Regorium

This is feminism today: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...he-daddy.thtml

I read that article and I have to say that it really pissed me off. Anyone who supports something like that should be truly ashamed of themselves.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ark2

This is in fact a very out-dated belief that has proven to be false. There was a baby boy that, due to an accident during his circumcision, lost his penis. At the time, Dr. John Money had the theory that gender was socialized and that within the first two years, a child's mind was malleable and one could be taught to grow up as either a boy or girl. Because of this, Bruce Reimer (the infant that had lost his penis) was castrated and his parents were told to raise him as a girl. He was given a surgically contructed vagina along with estrogen pills and Bruce became Brenda. If you know anything about this story, then you know that it was a complete failure. The child rejected the belief that he was a girl, displaying male "masculine" behaviour long before he was ever made aware that he was born a boy and he eventually had surgery to change his gender back. Gender is not socialized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

[FastFelony]

In addition to Ark2’s comment “David” or Bruce Reimer, got married to a woman with three children and even then he was troubled by his childhood. His case confirmed that the genetic sex and prenatal hormones play a big role in a person’s sense of self as female or a male, and turning him into a girl when he was a baby was a failure because his male biology “overwhelmingly demanded a consistent sexual identity”. Oh, and he committed suicide while in his thirties, because his sense of self identity was unbearable to him . However, he also mentioned that he hated how adults encouraged dependency in girls, so that shows how culture and/or society influences gender roles.

Also in cases of girls born with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a disorder, when the adrenal system produces high levels of androgen (male sex hormones) during the prenatal period and onwards. The girls are born with masculinized genitals and usually undergo surgical correction in infancy and with that they are given drug therapy to balance their hormones. They have also assessed these girls while growing up, they prefer to play with toys like trucks, cars rather than dolls, they have playmates that are boys, and seemed to be interested in “masculine” careers. They also showed masculine behavior, such as aggressiveness. Although it is unethical to do studies on human, by inducing them with sex hormones to see how it changes their behavior, there are many researches done on animals, by injecting them at a prenatal stage with androgen, which showed male-typical sexual behavior, aggression and lack of maternal caregiving.

Therefore, one cannot say that society, environment or biological sex play a role in gender identity, it is a combination of both, as much our biological sex is responsible for our gender identity, how we are reared in terms of gender is also important for a healthy sexual development.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by driveway

Which is better: a single parent home, or a dual parent home where the parents don't love each other?

And how are lower marriage rates and lower birth rates a "terrible cycle"?

So we should have less families and a society full of lonely, isolated people who will die alone? Sounds a bit Orwellian...

Family is the last bit of cultural fabric that Western nations have...

[iggyntangs]

Hmm, this thread seems QUITE derailed at this point...newly single and we're talking about genes, sexual identity, disorders...etc.

At any rate peter12, there's plenty of great advice already. You're 25, enjoy it! This is the time of your life where you should be putting yourself out there, and enjoying your friendships too. Get your mind off everything first, and someone put a good post on how long it takes to get over someone. Give it about 10-12 months, don't get into anything too serious until then.

I was with someone for 4 years, and then something similar happened to me as in your case and I broke up with her. Got into something with someone else 2 months later, and with the original person 6 months later (as a fling)...both were mistakes.

Take a look at yourself, and use this time as a self-learning tool. Honestly don't get so hard on yourself either, I did that a lot and it's not constructive at all. Like I said give yourself time, even when you think you'll never get over it and you'll never be the same.

You're right, you won't...you'll be better and stronger. As cliche and corny as it sounds, I'm living proof as many others are, 2 years later now.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FastFelony

In addition to Ark2’s comment “David” or Bruce Reimer, got married to a woman with three children and even then he was troubled by his childhood. His case confirmed that the genetic sex and prenatal hormones play a big role in a person’s sense of self as female or a male, and turning him into a girl when he was a baby was a failure because his male biology “overwhelmingly demanded a consistent sexual identity”. Oh, and he committed suicide while in his thirties, because his sense of self identity was unbearable to him . However, he also mentioned that he hated how adults encouraged dependency in girls, so that shows how culture and/or society influences gender roles.

Also in cases of girls born with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a disorder, when the adrenal system produces high levels of androgen (male sex hormones) during the prenatal period and onwards. The girls are born with masculinized genitals and usually undergo surgical correction in infancy and with that they are given drug therapy to balance their hormones. They have also assessed these girls while growing up, they prefer to play with toys like trucks, cars rather than dolls, they have playmates that are boys, and seemed to be interested in “masculine” careers. They also showed masculine behavior, such as aggressiveness. Although it is unethical to do studies on human, by inducing them with sex hormones to see how it changes their behavior, there are many researches done on animals, by injecting them at a prenatal stage with androgen, which showed male-typical sexual behavior, aggression and lack of maternal caregiving.

Therefore, one cannot say that society, environment or biological sex play a role in gender identity, it is a combination of both, as much our biological sex is responsible for our gender identity, how we are reared in terms of gender is also important for a healthy sexual development.

I wish I could believe you, but that font is so feminine.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How about the wage and corporate hierarchy discrepancies between men and women?

I once read a study that showed that women are statistically more likely to accept the first offer in a business negotiation than men are. In other words: suppose a woman is negotiating an employment contract with her future employer, and her employer is prepared to give her $85,000. However, to start the negotiation, he offers her $80,000 and she accepts, leaving $5,000 on the table that she was unaware of. Now, suppose a few months later, a similar position becomes available and this time a man, who is also given the initial offer of $80,000, negotiates his way up to $83,000. From the surface, this would look like gender discrimination, but look a little deeper and it is nothing of the sort.

Ever notice the massive discrepancies between the amount of male and female elected representatives?

Is it possible that men are simply more interested in getting involved in politics then women are? You're likely to see more men at a hockey game than women as well, but that doesn't mean that ticket sellers are sexist.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I once read a study that showed that women are statistically more likely to accept the first offer in a business negotiation than men are. In other words: suppose a women is negotiating an employment contract with her future employer, and her employer is prepared to give her $85,000. However, to start the negotiation, he offers her $80,000 and she accepts, leaving $5,000 on the table that she was unaware of. Now, suppose a few months later, a similar position becomes available and this time a man, who is also given the initial offer of $80,000, negotiates his way up to $83,000. From the surface, this would look like gender discrimination, but look a little deeper and it is nothing of the sort.

That is interesting if true. In my experience, women seem more likely to change jobs than men. Do men value stability more than women? Are women more likely to seek advancement?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Regorium

This is feminism today: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/al...he-daddy.thtml

The point is that paternity was ambiguous and it was effectively up to the mother to name her child’s father, or not. (That eminently sensible Jewish custom, whereby Jewishness is passed through the mother, was based on the fact that we only really knew who our mothers are.) Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter? You can feel quite as much tenderness for a child you mistakenly think to be yours as for one who is. Piers Paul Read’s interesting new novel, The Misogynist, touches on just this issue.

Interesting. I would say hell yes it matters.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I once read a study that showed that women are statistically more likely to accept the first offer in a business negotiation than men are. In other words: suppose a woman is negotiating an employment contract with her future employer, and her employer is prepared to give her $85,000. However, to start the negotiation, he offers her $80,000 and she accepts, leaving $5,000 on the table that she was unaware of. Now, suppose a few months later, a similar position becomes available and this time a man, who is also given the initial offer of $80,000, negotiates his way up to $83,000. From the surface, this would look like gender discrimination, but look a little deeper and it is nothing of the sort.



Is it possible that men are simply more interested in getting involved in politics then women are? You're likely to see more men at a hockey game than women as well, but that doesn't mean that ticket sellers are sexist.

I don't know, does it? You certainly can't assume that is the case without the data to back it up.