The community based on the iPersonic personality test.

Little thoughts

There is a group 'Women only' (no guys please) here. Group is discussing for example equality of women. I have a little thought. Isn't this group has a sexism base? It like I have written 'no woman (no black, no white, no gays, no straight etc.)' and going to say about equality. I think it will be funny... no? If I'm not right please explain me where I made a mistake. I want to know your point of view.
I will thankful for all who reply.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 19, 2009 at 4:53am: ;-) Admit you are jealous! :-)
Yes, it has a sexism base, in this community, since women may be marginalized in the world as a whole, but hardly so in this community. In the world community, usually it's those who have faced problems that unite in groups-such as gay movement, Black pride or whatever; the others see no need for this since they are in the majority/ get all the civil rights.
May be we can open it to everybody who has an interest in women's issues/ gender issues.
Or you can get together with Marcel and form a Guys' only (No women please) group. ;-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 19, 2009 at 8:31am: It looks like jealouse really? ;-)) No I don't feel any sort of jealouse. I feel some curiosity on that. I can understand thesis that women are not have equal rights as men in many countries. I know it and I think it's bad shameful. I don't understand why they bring the same behaviour patterns (which one they refusing) here. Isn't dividing is the same thing which one lead us to unequality. For example dividing into who hold rights and who does't. Obviously women have majority on this site. What reason to make special secret branch for the selected by sex? Well I think the reason is the same -- to divide. Whith the same followings -- no equality or equality for the selected. I'm not right? So if women want to free themselves why they go by the same wrong way? Essence of unequality don't change if women only change the gender who will hold right to divide.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 19, 2009 at 10:20am: Yes, it is a kind of separation, but I don't think there are any reasons to worry. This group may look like a "sexism base" but anyone knows some (more or less) differences between men and women. Sometimes, men need to talk to other men and women to other women I think. :) I wouldn't take this group so seriously, it's just a fun group. The intelligent user knows that the differences between both sexes are minor. And they would never harass others because of them...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 19, 2009 at 10:48am: No I don't worry. Why I could be worried about? And I know some differences between W and M. So what? I have never put my man's difference like reason for separation, dividing and bordering. I always say 'If you would'. Isn't that an aim for gender equality? It might be I'm wrong but we talk about gender equality but not sex equality. 'Sex' is a biological conception and 'gender' is a social conception. I think that sex unequality is not the reason for gender unequality. So as color unequality is not the reason for social unequality.
Please don't be worry I don't mind if someone make it. I have my way ;-)) But this is a question: how could we be equal on unequal way? I know you like philosophy. What do you think as philosopher about my question? =)))
And I don't want to ruin anything. I'm just curious ))); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 19, 2009 at 12:13pm: To be honest, I didn't recognize a difference between the two term "sex" and "gender" until now. But of course, I know what you mean. On a social base there shouldn't be any dividing between men and women. Because I think the "differences" are mainly caused by behavioural roles of M/W and the typical prejudices. But the other side is: No one is truly equal to another person. Differences can enrich our life and may lead us to new ideas and inspiration. The most important thing is to accept them and don't use differences to discriminate others.

I never thought you wanted to ruin anything. It's good that someone is asking this questions. :); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 19, 2009 at 3:46pm: Thank you Patrice, I've got it.
I understand that we are individuals. Let's see on difference of individuals. I think that my individuality (or personality) creates in interaction. So if we have no interaction we have no personality. This is a reason to be internationalist and libertarian more than to be nationalist and authoritarian. This is my reason anyway ;-)) I believe that interaction makes everything. If I cut interaction out - I also kill the human’s personality. What is the personality means if noting besides doesn’t exist?
What sort of equality I have in mind? Firstly I talk about equality in interaction and communication. If anyone throws me out an interaction s/he deprives me of rights being of full value person. Secondly I talk about outside limitation in the sex or gender basis. Both these cases don’t add anything to sum of goodness.
So I return to my basis thesis – any external separation or dividing of any person is bad thing and they do not work on the good future. How can we struggle for our freedom if we don’t have freedom inside? We can’t fight against things which we make. It’s might be sort of nonsense, no? :-)); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 19, 2009 at 3:58pm: Yes, if we don't interact with different individuals we cannot understand each other. It leads to further distancing.

There are many "women's" programs and news papers in my country, and they do nothing other than strengthening the stereotypes, which limit women's freedom and independence.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 19, 2009 at 5:09pm: Yes, you're right. But I wanted to say that there are also certain groups of people who want to be separated. It's also natural for humans to divide themselves in a special group or alone. That's one way to find individuality and an own identity. But in this case, the separation was wanted, so that's okay. It's the same thing like the difference between the terms "outsider" and "loner". You know what I mean? ;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 20, 2009 at 4:22am: 'Loner' is a good word, I didn't know it before. Thanks for the word. ))
But I don't agree with you about 'want to be separated' part. If I want to be separated I say 'I want to be separated'. But if I say 'I want you are separated' what do I want? I know our society is not perfect and some people want to be divided. But there is difference between 'I want to divide myself' and 'I want to divide you'. I think this is like a difference between 'I want to do something' and 'I want you do something'.
Let’s come to another way. Women have a majority here. If majority said ‘We want to be separate’ what do you think they really want? Just imagine… ;-)) Majority’s actions to separation obviously are the rules for all others. Isn’t that reason to be delicate and accurate?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 20, 2009 at 3:35pm: Yes, of course. It is a essential difference if I say "I want to live at another place to be alone." or "I want you to live somewhere else to get rid of you." That's a point which some people don't understand I think. Everyone is allowed to decide what's best for him. That also means: nobody is allowed to tell you what to do. (Except for laws or anything like that.) This is the status how it should be.

Imagine the following example: There are districts called "Chinatown" in many larger american cities. There are living people who have chinese ancestors. (of course not all of them) But it's not like a ghetto, where they have been locked up against their desire. They are living there because they want it. Okay, this may isn't the best example but perhaps you understand what I wanted to say.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 21, 2009 at 12:36pm: Yes, I think Chinatown is not the best example. It’s as minimum because of it openness for another people. But if they have locked their doors and say ‘We want to be separated’ – what do you think will happen? On only reason – separation is hostility and rejecting and society which one built on that base isn’t stable. If we have dividing so we have a struggle for power (I hope not in our case ;-))).
You could make a simple social experiment – just ask: ‘what do you want to be separated from’? If you get answer ‘from some social qualities’ you could ask ‘if those qualities belongs to men only’? If not (and obviously not) what remains? ;-))
I think my answer is sexism base ;-)); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 21, 2009 at 5:19pm: I never claimed separation would be a good thing. (until now) I just said that it's normal for people to divide from others.

Besides, I can't really agree with you. Sometimes, it is good in my opinion. Imagine the people who don't want to be in contact with the others all the time. People who need a lot of time for themselves, the Loners. Why is it bad if they want to isolate themselves? Because it's what you're saying: "Separation is never good", right?