Female Car Enthusiasts

[GBO Possum]

I'm married to one, and it's a wonderful gift!

 

[Ken]

I'm married to one, and it's a wonderful gift!

My wife, @Mrs.Koios, isn't a spectacular car nut. But she does have an appreciation for them. She often encourages us to check out car shows and such. Plus, she works for a tie truck company. I got lucky.

 

[mirial]

But isn't everything you say there implicitly accepting a perceived difference enforced by society?

You think it's unnatural for a man to have a female icon for example, that in itself is very telling.

Source, please.

Sorry, do you mean perceived difference with the way things used to be or today?

Yes, it's unnatural for a man to have female icons as role models to put it specifically. We've probably evolved to model ourselves on the most successful men closest to us in order to get more and better lays to put it crudely. As comparable professionals in driving, if you were an aspiring rally driver, would you want to be able to drive like Michelle Mouton or Markku Alen? Even Miriam Clegg (nee Gonzalez!) said the other day that there was a shortage of suitable women available to inspire girls from state schools on how to get on in a career.

As for the percentage of dominant men and women, this guy does his research and whilst I too wanted to ask him where he sourced the data, not many to my knowledge have questioned it on his blog in the two years it has been posted. Whilst I agree with many things he says in general, I don't really agree with his alternative lifestyle choice.

http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2012/07/29/the-three-types-of-women/

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, it's unnatural for a man to have female icons as role models to put it specifically. We've probably evolved to model ourselves on the most successful men closest to us in order to get more and better lays to put it crudely. As comparable professionals in driving, if you were an aspiring rally driver, would you want to be able to drive like Michelle Mouton or Markku Alen? Even Miriam Clegg (nee Gonzalez!) said the other day that there was a shortage of suitable women available to inspire girls from state schools on how to get on in a career.

Having female role models for girls isn't the same as gender exclusivity in inspiration though, is it? Were people like Amy Johnson, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher never inspirational to you when you read of the things they did? They were to me (even if I didn't agree with their personal views on some things). That had nothing to do with them being women (or not being men).

The nature of society has given us more successful male figures than female but that too has nothing to do with the suitability of a role model.

Is it more likely that a boy will have a male role model in a particular area/subject? Yes. Is it unnatural if his role model is female? No, of course not.

 

[DK]

I just had a brief look at that "Black Dragon Blog", the author seems like a typical pick-up artist.

 

[NoobMan DS]

I once received a question from a female friend, "Why do guys like cars and girls like handbags?" I answered like, "Well, there are some girls that like cars and some guys that like handbags. Maybe they just don't feel like conveying it in the latter case. And I bet a lot of handbags are actually designed by men." What's in my head was actually something like, "What!? Such generalization...where does this thought come from?"

Anyway, putting that aside, I think it's somewhat noticeable that female car enthusiasts aren't as many as male car enthusiasts. Apart from what's been said on why, such as upbringing and hormonal differences, do any of you think that sometimes, it has something to do with misinterpretation or misperception of automotive culture at its core level? Say, a lot of tuning magazines like to portray scantily clad female figures posing provocatively alongside modified cars. Then, there are lots of street racing films featuring scenes of girls wearing only a few clothes merely dancing around the cars and doing nothing else but that. There's also the popular juxtaposition of appreciating a car and appreciating a woman, which I feel is an essentially flawed analogy because no matter how extreme you can romanticize your ride into having some sort of a personality, enjoying it involves controlling and taking advantage of it, while doing the same to a fellow human being is an act of disrespect. And there are quotes by famous racing drivers and other automotive figures that pertain to a similar mindset. Perhaps, some females feel that being enthusiastic about cars essentially needs to involve objectification and sexualization of the female gender, and this is something that disgusts them.

Of course, in essence, being enthusiastic about cars is just as innocent as...I don't know, being enthusiastic about any common material thing, even though the enjoyment of the subject can vary from one thing to another.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

I like cars. My eldest daughter likes cars. My youngest daughter if she so chooses to like cars then that's fine. I have a real issue with gender specific toys therefore she plays with the things she enjoys and not what she's "supposed" to have. She has recently discovered "Cars" (the film) and demands to watch it at least once a day, and she's stolen her older sister's Dynaco Lightening McQueen. Yet she goes to bed with two dolls. She is however most interested in maths

 

[Carlos]

Female car enthusiasts. We're few and far between. But why? Why is the automotive industry a male dominanted environment? Why are car girls seen as 'rare breeds'? Why is it surprising to find a girl genuinely interested in cars?

This article written by Speedhunters writer Taryn Croucher made me think about it. Whenever a girl who likes cars bursts on to the scene, everyone usually freaks out. I've had it a lot. Guys are intrigued, some instantaneously decide to hit on you, some back away in fear of being in the presence of an actual girl who actually likes cars. But why is this so? And why, in this day and age where sexism appears to be a thing of the past, are girls still treated differently in the automotive world?

Is it because girls are seen as 'weak', and 'don't want to get their nails dirty'? Why are we called 'female car enthusiasts' instead of just car enthusiasts? You guys don't call yourselves a 'male car enthusiast', do you? You just automatically presume a car enthusiast is male. Is it because parents are bringing up their children to fit in with the gender stereotype? It seems only girls with car-related backgrounds turn out to be car girls. How can we get more girls interested in these exciting, loud, spine-tingling metallic monsters of pure joy? How can we make the car scene a more female friendly environment?

Discuss.

Sexism is not something from the past. Honestly when a girl turns up at a car meeting and she drives a nice car and she is good looking, my interest goes up x9000. Because I want to stay alpha I just chill with my buddies, but there are a lot of guys that can not control their selves. I totally understand the interest in female car fanatics because it is rare and I'm sure we all fantasise about it at least once in our lifetime. How people react to female car fanatics though is really just a horny guy trying to tame a girl. They don't respect you. They want to dominate you and use you for show..

I don't go to tuning car meetings for a good 3 years now because most people are retards. I brought my girlfriend a couple of times and men were hitting on her. The last time I brought her was when a guy asked me this: "Hey, can you give me her number after you are done ****ing her?" He laughed right away like it was a joke but I could have slapped the guy in the face for it and I probably should have done it, but I turned around and never came back. If you want to be associated with people like that be my guest, but as a girl on herself I think you have a hard time finding normal people at meetings.

On the other hand, if the guy his car is so tuned up it can hardly drive, what do you expect from him?

Go to the circuit, that is the place to be.

 

[sesselpupser]

It's alive and well.

A lot of people, feminists especially, argue against gender roles that society has historically placed on both males and females. Men are supposed to be strong, tough and emotionally stable while women are supposed to be caring, empathetic and emotionally expressive. Supposedly those are roles that society came up with over time and they're getting tired of it.

If by 'over time' you mean 'since the dawn of man', then yes, they're getting sick of it now because society has reached a point where it's ok to discuss equality - it's so ok, in fact, that women are now allowed to vote and won't be prosecuted for speaking their mind! Fancy that, eh? If you were generally seen as inferior to another gender or race you'd probably also be sick of it yourself but I'm going to go ahead and guess you're a middle class male so you're already at the top, of course everyone else's issues are easy to shrug off because you don't need to deal with it.

But what does society have to say about the fact that male humans are and generally have been larger, stronger and tougher than females since prehistoric times? It's hard to know how prehistoric humans dealt with emotions but we do know that it was the males who usually went hunting and did the scary stuff that could get you killed.

So? Prehistoric humans also couldn't operate cars, build skyscrapers or manufacture transistors smaller than virus cells. Times have changed ever so subtly since then.

You need to be strong and emotionally stable for such tasks. Women had other roles to play in prehistoric society which were just as important and required a different set of skills.

You've never met a strong and emotionally stable woman, have you? You've probably also never met an emotionally intelligent, caring man, either.

As far as I can tell, these natural roles have persisted throughout time. I'm not exactly sure why these anti-gender role/equality/feminist people are so upset about that.

Because it doesn't have to be that way. The whole 'being human' thing has allowed us to navigate around how we've evolved with intelligence and sophistication - humans couldn't fly before, we can now. They weren't designed to eat meat, but we do, daily. We weren't supposed to be able to burrow underground, travel into space, harvest solar energy, make weapons that could eradicate entire cities or even be able to throw a spear beyond a few tens of metres - we can now kill a single man from the other side of the world if we want. Is gender equality really so impossible in the face of all that?

Women certainly can do anything men can do and vice versa, but as it happens neither of us are as good at doing the other's jobs as they are.

This may be true, but just because a woman would naturally be a better single parent than a man, does that mean a man should never be able to take custody of his kids in the event of a break up or divorce? Because a man is naturally better suited to front line combat, can a woman never be a combat soldier?

So how about instead of bitching we just focus on what we do best and get on with it. This is when they'd all call me an asshole because of course men are assholes - and yet they still want the D. Being an asshole ain't half bad sometimes, ya know.

Hey, instead of developing as a species why don't we just carry on hunting for berries, the odd boar and survive one day to the next without hygiene, healthcare, language, intelligence and all those other great things we've picked up in the last... 160,000 years? Also, I'm not an asshole now, never have been, yet I do just fine.

My point is that when women do things that women don't usually do, it gets noticed. Likewise, when men do things men don't usually do it also gets noticed. Not many women are car girls and not many guys are cheer leaders, you feel me. Sometimes girls actually shun other girls for doing guy things - they'll call them sluts or whatever. Just because they hang out with dudes. Guys will make fun of cheer leaders and call them fags and whatnot.

Why do you think this is? Because of how we've evolved? Because of our genetic programming? Please. It's because children are taught at an early age what it means to be a man - blue, construction toys, robots, guns, aliens, cowboys - and what it means to be a woman - pink, dolls, nursing, making cakes, horses. Humans are, however, instinctively afraid of anything that differs from the norm (hence sexism, racism, xenophobia, 'my sports team is so much better than yours that I'll punch you in the face for supporting them', religious wars and all that good stuff that we now condemn because we're smart enough to see that it's unnecessary), but in this case the norm is an entirely social invention. Cavemen didn't have cars, cheerleading or any of the stuff I listed as stereotypically male/female pursuits, after all.

The only way this will ever change is if we raise our own kids so that there is no distinction any more, I know I'll be giving my hypothetical daughters Lego sets, Arduinos and I'll teach them maths and engineering until they say 'look, dad, no offence but this is all crap and we'd honestly rather just play with dolls and look at horses'. I won't default to dolls and horses, though.

The only difference is that we men don't actually mean it. You girls are brutal to each other.

Absolute bullcrap.

In my opinion, if these people want to find the root of the problem they should study females, not males. Men simply don't care enough to instigate stupid problems like this - we've got work to do. But I guess that's just me being an asshole, isn't it.

The world we live in now, the society you and I live in, it's male-led through and through and this is apparently how you think as a result. But hey, you're not a woman so just blame women, right?

EDIT: There's also the fact that some car girls are less car girls and more the car community whore. I know a couple of them. Unfortunately, I haven't had the pleasure because that's not really my style. But I would.

Charming as ever, Keef. You're such a man.


About the article in question, maybe I'm being cynical but my first thought was it could be a statement from EA (Speedhunters is owned by EA) on the GamerGate thing. Not that that diminishes the message at all, but after the way Speedhunters tends to flaunt women - Taryn especially - whenever possible, it seems a bit contradictory. Look up past articles by or about Taryn and you'll find several photos featuring her looking cute, some even without a car in sight, sometimes she'll be driving (while smiling), I think there might be one of her working on a car. The photos of men you see are 90% them looking serious, determined, MANLY with or without a racing suit and/or helmet on or working on a car while looking serious, determined or MANLY, 10% them joking around or just smiling for the camera. And that's fine, I understand that sex sells and men are going to click on an article featuring photos of a cute woman, but you can't really present gender in a disproportionate way like that then post an article about 'Why is the 'female' car enthusiast a thing?' on the same site and expect it to be taken 100% seriously.

That said, without that context, there's little to disagree with in the article.

As for @Katiegan's OP, it's much the same as girls in gaming or girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering & maths) subjects. These are generally 'known' to be activities enjoyed by men and I don't think it's a stretch to specify heterosexual men. The reality is, of course, people of any gender and sexual identity have a right to - and many do - have an interest in any of these things, but they're not so visible because an overwhelming majority of people interested in cars are men and men just assume everyone else is a man until given a reason to assume otherwise. So unless a woman (on the internet, I mean) says 'Hi, I'm a woman and I like cars/games/STEM' or at least has a female screen name, men are very likely to assume that they're talking to another man, which kind of demonstrates just how little it actually matters. But yeah, men like women (and that's ok, obviously), people are often attracted to people who share common interests... It's going to be picked up on.

In my experience, though, it's not a big deal at all in practice; every car-based event I've been to has been mostly full of men, some with bored-looking women in tow but you do occasionally see women looking at stuff with interest without men even batting an eyelid or saying 'wow, you're a girl!'.

The media tends make a big deal out of women in racing, too; Danica Patrick for instance. Now, this is a tricky subject because:
- On the one hand, it's impossible to overstate how important it is for young women and children to have role models to show them that hey, just because you were raised to believe cars and machines were a boy's game, that doesn't make it true. So by all means, use your gender to promote yourself that way.
- But on the other hand, uh... Actually I'll hide this behind a link just in case. Yeah. Not really helping the cause, there. Had she been unattractive or a man I really don't think I'd know who she is since I can only name a handful of other American drivers and even then only because GT5/6 mentions them specifically.

Anyway, I'm not sure what I was trying to say any more. Basically it's not surprising that the 'female' car enthusiast label exists, same as how the 'girl' gamer label exists. For it (and any other gender-specific labels) to cease to exist you'd have to raise people (of both genders) to stop assigning specific roles to specific genders by default, stop marketing certain toys and media at specific genders, be accepting of everyone as autonomous people who aren't bound by genetic programming and a whole insurmountable heap of other stuff. It'll never go away but with a lot of effort from men and women in the enthusiast community as well as the media it can be made a lot less commonplace.

 

[mirial]

Having female role models for girls isn't the same as gender exclusivity in inspiration though, is it? Were people like Amy Johnson, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher never inspirational to you when you read of the things they did? They were to me (even if I didn't agree with their personal views on some things). That had nothing to do with them being women (or not being men).

The nature of society has given us more successful male figures than female but that too has nothing to do with the suitability of a role model.

Is it more likely that a boy will have a male role model in a particular area/subject? Yes. Is it unnatural if his role model is female? No, of course not.

I can understand getting inspirational ideas and stories from women, but I'm coming from the angle that it's natural for a boy/man to have a male role model in order to emulate him. The women you mention are figures that excelled in areas that were not of huge interest to me personally, and I can't really comment on Margaret Thatcher because I don't have a good enough understanding of global politics and what ultimately the end goal is. The more you read, the more you realise you don't know, but I'm suspicious of the whole thing.

When I was in engineering, the many role model women climbing the corporate ladder weren't inspirational to me simply because our philosophies about engineering were different in that I was really into the integrity, quality and design, whereas they cared about 'career' success, which I couldn't have given two fiddlers about. I got my inspiration from the two best men at the time who were very blunt, honest, and really knew what they were doing. I find men are very direct and honest in competitive fields whilst women much less so, which......always gives me much more hope for improvement and getting on side.

Even in our little world of GT, there's a couple of drivers knocking around that should be doing DTM or WTCC that would inspire anyone wanting to improve.

What's the perceived difference you were asking about by the way?

 

[Keef]

...society has reached a point where it's ok to discuss equality - it's so ok, in fact, that women are now allowed to vote and won't be prosecuted for speaking their mind!

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Do you honestly think there is a moral issue with the fact that not many women are fire fighters? News flash: There isn't.

So? Prehistoric humans also couldn't operate cars, build skyscrapers or manufacture transistors smaller than virus cells. Times have changed ever so subtly since then.

The professions you just mentioned are all dominated by men. That's funny. So let me ask your opinion. Why do you think few women either excel at or are involved with operating cars, building skyscrapers or manufacturing transistors?

I'd hazard that it's because women don't really give a rat's ass about operating cars, building skyscrapers or manufacturing transistors. I think most women - probably not the ones on a computer-based internet forum about cars and video games, mind you - would probably agree. Why?

You've never met a strong and emotionally stable woman, have you? You've probably also never met an emotionally intelligent, caring man, either.

I have. My ex-girlfriend. The reason we broke up is because she proposed an argument just like you have here which appears to be focused on arguing for argument's sake rather than asking and answering the question, "Why?"

Because it doesn't have to be that way. The whole 'being human' thing has allowed us to navigate around how we've evolved with intelligence and sophistication - humans couldn't fly before, we can now. They weren't designed to eat meat, but we do, daily. We weren't supposed to be able to burrow underground, travel into space, harvest solar energy, make weapons that could eradicate entire cities or even be able to throw a spear beyond a few tens of metres - we can now kill a single man from the other side of the world if we want. Is gender equality really so impossible in the face of all that?

I didn't say it has to be that way. I think instead of proposing gender equality as a problem which must be faced, you should ask yourself if gender equality is a problem at all. I know female fire fighters. I know female engineers. Female scientists. I know real car girls. Women can do anything of these things. I don't see a problem necessarily. What I see is that more men than women do these things. I also see some people, yourself included, getting really upset about that fact and I don't understand why. I mean, if it doesn't have to be the way it currently is, does it actually have to be any other way? Does there have to be as many female engineers as there are male? Does there have to be more? What is the correct balance? Who will set this arbitrary limit? What is equality, even?

Let me propose this question to you. What does gender equality mean to you?

This may be true, but just because a woman would naturally be a better single parent than a man, does that mean a man should never be able to take custody of his kids in the event of a break up or divorce? Because a man is naturally better suited to front line combat, can a woman never be a combat soldier?

I never said they couldn't and both of those things occur in our society. My point still stands that males and females excel at different things. Yourself and others seem, at least to my eyes, to see this as a problem. I don't see it as the problem. The problem I see is that people are uncomfortable with the fact that males and females excel at different things.

Isn't humanity supposed to work together as a team for the betterment of the species? If so, does it not make sense that people should focus on what they're good at?

It's like a sports team. You don't put your best pitcher first on your batting rotation because pitchers suck at batting. That's usually the way it is. Is the fact that most pitchers suck at batting a problem? No. It doesn't need to be fixed. They play their role and all the rest of the team members play theirs. In the end, it all works like a finely oiled machine. There is nothing inherently wrong with roles, yet many believe believe there is, particularly when it comes to gender.

Hey, instead of developing as a species why don't we just carry on hunting for berries, the odd boar and survive one day to the next without hygiene, healthcare, language, intelligence and all those other great things we've picked up in the last... 160,000 years?

Developing as a species is fine. Let it happen. Why must we force the issue by trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist? How does having 50% male and 50% female engineers develop us as a species, as opposed to merely meeting an arbitrary quota developed by a person who believes equality means to have everybody be just as good at doing everything as everybody else?

Why do you think this is? Because of how we've evolved? Because of our genetic programming? Please. It's because children are taught at an early age what it means to be a man - blue, construction toys, robots, guns, aliens, cowboys - and what it means to be a woman - pink, dolls, nursing, making cakes, horses. Humans are, however, instinctively afraid of anything that differs from the norm (hence sexism, racism, xenophobia, 'my sports team is so much better than yours that I'll punch you in the face for supporting them', religious wars and all that good stuff that we now condemn because we're smart enough to see that it's unnecessary), but in this case the norm is an entirely social invention.

I don't believe it is entirely social as I've eluded to several times already and you seem to have missed with your next point. I believe our social norms are influenced by natural tendencies. While some things aren't helpful at all, teasing in particular, I don't think they're entirely social constructs.

Cavemen didn't have cars, cheerleading or any of the stuff I listed as stereotypically male/female pursuits, after all.

But they did have hunting, gathering, nurturing of children, building of fires, defending of villages, etc. The men hunted. The women nurtured. Were their differing roles purely social constructs like you suggest? Of course not. We see such roles throughout the animal kingdom. Occasionally the roles are reversed completely but the fact remains that there are differing roles for each gender. Certain human beings are the only animals on the planet who seem to have a problem with that. I think it makes for good teamwork, myself, but maybe I'm just a ****ing caveman.

The only way this will ever change is if we raise our own kids so that there is no distinction any more, I know I'll be giving my hypothetical daughters Lego sets, Arduinos and I'll teach them maths and engineering until they say 'look, dad, no offence but this is all crap and we'd honestly rather just play with dolls and look at horses'. I won't default to dolls and horses, though.

Do that, then. @FoolKiller tried it. And his result is what you just said - his daughter wanted to do girly things. Why? Why do these equality fanatics think there is a problem with that? Why do they want to force women to be men and men to be women? I don't get it.

Charming as ever, Keef. You're such a man.

I got laid the other day so I must be doing something right.

 

[Liquid]

Car girls are hot.

Just sayin'.

Car girls can be ugly too.

Stop with your lookist rubbish, sir!

 

[Famine]

I like cars. My eldest daughter likes cars.

And she in no way skipped any school just to go to Le Mans.

 

[FoRiZon]

errrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Sabine Schmitz, Danica Patrick, etc.

One asks why very few females advocated to these kind of hobby.

 

[mirial]

Do that, then. @FoolKiller tried it. And his result is what you just said - his daughter wanted to do girly things. Why? Why do these equality fanatics think there is a problem with that? Why do they want to force women to be men and men to be women? I don't get it.

It's a strange one and it could be the green-eyed monster amongst those that weren't blessed with Alpha female femininity and attractiveness to bag their Knight in shining armour. Let's admit it, these are by far the most attractive to most men and even more so when bright and bubbly. I had a run-in with a drunk human rights barrister at a party recently who disliked me very much for being English and just chatting to her more attractive, feminine friend. I've never met such a loud, coarse, venom spitting horrible woman in my whole life. Her kids apparently were Oxbridge....how treacherous.

 

[FoolKiller]

I once received a question from a female friend, "Why do guys like cars and girls like handbags?"

Because wallets. Guys aren't pressured to look good the way women are so we don't have things like makeup and whatnot that necessitates a bag.

This pressure comes down to the physiological difference between men and women. Guys want to get laid. It's a predominant trait of their hormonal makeup. Women are more programmed to be interested in a lasting mate. It goes back to evolutionary necessity. If neither sex developed a tendency toward being familial we'd have a bunch of dead babies and no species. Today those drives still exist, though tempered by society and cultured. But men react to the physical more (this could also explain guys loving the feel and sound of a great car), so a woman looking for a mate needs to appear physically attractive to trigger that attraction in a male. She has to be more focused on her looks. It helps if men are attractive, but as a happily married nerd who had a pretty good time of it in college, it isn't necessary.

She is however most interested in maths

I could never understand that. Math was a tool to achieve understating of my interests, but enjoyment of it I just never understood. My friend's wife is an accountant who loves tax season. She is also the blood sucking vampire that took the life out of my friend and only allows me to borrow him for one race weekend a year.

It's a strange one and it could be the green-eyed monster amongst those that weren't blessed with Alpha female femininity and attractiveness to bag their Knight in shining armour. Let's admit it, these are by far the most attractive to most men and even more so when bright and bubbly.

My daughter is the blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl who has the boys hugging on her and making daddy want a gun just so he can be cleaning it when she starts dating. She always has been.

I think another test of how we see femininity is in how girls react to Anna vs Elsa in Frozen. Elsa spends half the movie being the villain of her own story. She threatens to destroy the entire kingdom and creates monsters. She should be scary. But the toys hit the shelf and Elsa stuff was impossible to find. Anna stuff was always available. Every kid I have asked why they like Elsa more say she is pretty. Make a non-traditional female character who is the hero and the youngest kids don't care when they have the leggy blonde princess instead.

Who wants to guess why Brave slid under the radar?

 

[sesselpupser]

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Do you honestly think there is a moral issue with the fact that not many women are fire fighters? News flash: There isn't.

Not at all. What I was saying was Western society has moved on from treating women as objects who should be seen and not heard to now allowing them most of the same rights as men. Is that genetics? No, it's society moving on, so I was saying times have changed so it's extraordinarily backwards to suggest women should 'stop bitching and get on with what they're good at' when so much else has changed.

The professions you just mentioned are all dominated by men. That's funny. So let me ask your opinion. Why do you think few women either excel at or are involved with operating cars, building skyscrapers or manufacturing transistors?

I'd hazard that it's because women don't really give a rat's ass about operating cars, building skyscrapers or manufacturing transistors. I think most women - probably not the ones on a computer-based internet forum about cars and video games, mind you - would probably agree. Why?

What evidence are you basing that on? How many notable women can you name that aren't from a media-based career? How many men, for that matter? Do you know the names of the people who work at Intel's fabrication plants who are engineering the next die shrink? Probably not, so why are you assuming the minority (if any) of them are women? They could all be women and you wouldn't know, neither would I, but that's not the point I was making anyway.

But ok, let's assume you're right and they are overwhelmingly male-led industries with the employment of women not expanding or only expanding slowly. Is it because the women just naturally want to be models, teachers and housewives, or is it because that's what society tells them they should do? The whole point of this thread is that it's seen as 'weird' to be a girl who's interested in cars, is that anything to do with genetics (as you mentioned, enjoying cars isn't something that was programmed into us as pre-homo sapiens) or is it the way we've all been brought up to expect men to be interested in cars because when you were playing with Hot Wheels your sister had a Barbie doll and that's just the way it's always been for as long as anyone can remember?

I have. My ex-girlfriend. The reason we broke up is because she proposed an argument just like you have here which appears to be focused on arguing for argument's sake rather than asking and answering the question, "Why?"

If you had read what I wrote you'd see I explained my thoughts on exactly why - the roles the genders have, besides childbirth and those requiring significant physical exertion in life or death situations (I guess), been invented by society not by genetics - not any more. There was a time when it was essential that men hunted while women stayed safe, but that was a hell of a long time ago. If women want to change the way it works today, who are we to stop them? Read this. Do you think this is fair? I hope not. Why is it not fair? Because these women are doing the same jobs as men but getting paid less, right? Why are they being paid less? Is it genetics and/or the natural roles women should just play and stop bitching about it, or is it because society has said men are worth more in the same jobs?

I didn't say it has to be that way. I think instead of proposing gender equality as a problem which must be faced, you should ask yourself if gender equality is a problem at all. I know female fire fighters. I know female engineers. Female scientists. I know real car girls. Women can do anything of these things. I don't see a problem necessarily. What I see is that more men than women do these things. I also see some people, yourself included, getting really upset about that fact and I don't understand why. I mean, if it doesn't have to be the way it currently is, does it actually have to be any other way? Does there have to be as many female engineers as there are male? Does there have to be more? What is the correct balance? Who will set this arbitrary limit? What is equality, even?

Let me propose this question to you. What does gender equality mean to you?

Equality is equal pay regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, age or background. It's being able to dress however you like without people judging you for it. What would you call a man who sleeps with a lot of women? In England we don't really have a word for it, I guess if we had one it would be 'stud' or 'ladykiller', he's just a man being a man. What would you call a woman who does the same? Here, they'd be called something fairly derogatory. Does that sound equal to you? I can't see how that could possibly not be a problem. How about the GamerGate thing, the ones who are clearly just using it to harass women out of their jobs (it's happened a few times already). Is that equality? How about Australia outlawing same-sex marriage late last year? Probably nothing to worry about, eh? Inequality is everywhere, I'm not so naive to suggest that we end all inequality because that just won't work as there are too many people with too much power have too much interest in maintaining the status quo. However, a lot can be done to make things more equal than they are now.

There don't have to be as many women as men in engineering for me to be satisfied, either. What would satisfy me, however, would be the removal of the barriers that prevent or at least impede women who may have been engineers from ever even realising they would've been great in that role. If that happens and then every single woman in the world just shrugs and none of them choose to become engineers, that's fine by me, as long as they have the same opportunities I've had and reached the conclusion that they don't want to be an engineer for themselves, not because society has told them 'No, you're a woman, women aren't engineers. Go make your husband a sandwich like a good girl.' That doesn't mean to imply that's what I think you think, by the way, just to make that clear.

I never said they couldn't and both of those things occur in our society. My point still stands that males and females excel at different things. Yourself and others seem, at least to my eyes, to see this as a problem. I don't see it as the problem. The problem I see is that people are uncomfortable with the fact that males and females excel at different things.

That men and women excel in different areas is not the problem. The problem comes when people say '... There's no problem here. So stop bitching and carry on!' as if things couldn't be improved further. There may not be a fundamental problem - not any more, not since women have regained a significant portion of the rights men have historically enjoyed, such as the right to vote or be out at night alone - but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. My 2011 PC works just fine, does that mean Intel should've stopped improving their CPU design? Horses were a fine method of transport, but cars came along and stuff improved a whole lot. So women want equality that they don't currently have... Why would we deny them that? What do we, the male gender, have to gain from suppressing that discussion? So, while you're essentially asking 'Why is this a problem?', I suppose I'm asking 'Why is it a problem that some people think it's a problem?'

Isn't humanity supposed to work together as a team for the betterment of the species? If so, does it not make sense that people should focus on what they're good at?

Of course it does, but who actually decided who is good at what? It's all based on tradition and a lack of societal development in this area because it's built on extremely outdated genetic differences... But the genetic differences just don't matter any more. Is there any factual evidence to suggest that men are just genetically better at STEM subjects than women? No, what there is is a centuries-old, male-led society that focused on men as the breadwinner, women as the housewife. As I alluded to before, we're more sophisticated, more intelligent and more knowledgable now than we've ever been, more capable at overriding almost any disadvantage brought about by our evolutionary path than any species we've ever known, and yet you appear to be saying 'Stuff is fine as it is, let's just carry on that way because it must be this way for a reason.'

It's like a sports team. You don't put your best pitcher first on your batting rotation because pitchers suck at batting. That's usually the way it is. Is the fact that most pitchers suck at batting a problem? No. It doesn't need to be fixed. They play their role and all the rest of the team members play theirs. In the end, it all works like a finely oiled machine. There is nothing inherently wrong with roles, yet many believe believe there is, particularly when it comes to gender.

If you do the same thing over and over, you can only expect the same results every time, right? The best inventions have come from trying new things. Step back and apply that to society as a whole. Where is the threat in helping women do whatever they want to do? Is it not possible that we may learn new techniques, new ways of thinking or achieve more if we had more women (and the same amount of men) working to improve things?

Developing as a species is fine. Let it happen. Why must we force the issue by trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist? How does having 50% male and 50% female engineers develop us as a species, as opposed to merely meeting an arbitrary quota developed by a person who believes equality means to have everybody be just as good at doing everything as everybody else?

At this point I'll have to invite you to read a book on gender equality and the aims of modern feminism because I really don't think I can explain it to you in this post. If you can't recognise there's still a great deal for feminists to fight over then I'm sorry, I'd have no idea how to explain it to you anyway, it's a very deep and complex subject. Plenty of women across the world seem to believe there's a problem, maybe not all women - many are happy to just live with what they're given, like many other people - but do you really think the people who you're disagreeing with are just inventing problems to moan about?

Also, who said anything about a 50:50 split? I'm not advocating that at all. What I'm advocating is a society in which a girl can tell her dad she wants to build space rockets someday and not be laughed at. When my ex was at school she had to do child development classes, and when she told her teachers that she was going to go to university they laughed in her face and told her to carry on learning how to change nappies. I mean, what the hell is that? You wanted to know why there aren't many notable female engineers or scientists, right? Well, there's part of your answer right there!

I don't believe it is entirely social as I've eluded to several times already and you seem to have missed with your next point. I believe our social norms are influenced by natural tendencies. While some things aren't helpful at all, teasing in particular, I don't think they're entirely social constructs.

How far back do you want to go? Because...

But they did have hunting, gathering, nurturing of children, building of fires, defending of villages, etc. The men hunted. The women nurtured. Were their differing roles purely social constructs like you suggest? Of course not. We see such roles throughout the animal kingdom. Occasionally the roles are reversed completely but the fact remains that there are differing roles for each gender. Certain human beings are the only animals on the planet who seem to have a problem with that. I think it makes for good teamwork, myself, but maybe I'm just a ****ing caveman.

This is what I'm saying. We're not cavemen any more and we're certainly not animals, we're the smartest, most sophisticated species that we're aware of. Women can (and increasingly do) have careers in which they earn more than average men, while their husbands stay at home to raise the kids. Who's the hunter in that situation? Is there even a use for hunters, given the way things are now? So, with that in mind, why do the gender roles still persist when they evidently don't have to be that way? It's not genetics, I can tell you that. We have evolved a great deal in the past 160,000 years, the whole hunter-gatherer thing is as outdated as natural selection, which - thanks to technology and modern medicine - just doesn't exist for our race any more.

Do that, then. @FoolKiller tried it. And his result is what you just said - his daughter wanted to do girly things. Why? Why do these equality fanatics think there is a problem with that? Why do they want to force women to be men and men to be women? I don't get it.

No one wants to force anyone to be anything, and that's exactly the point. I said I wouldn't default to dolls and horses, but if that's what she wants to do, fine. Many parents are happy to encourage the stereotypes that have existed for hundreds of years, this is a huge part of the reason why society has the expectations it has. I don't want my (hypothetical) daughter to grow up thinking she has to be secretary or has to marry a rich husband, I want her to grow up believing, no, knowing she can do whatever the hell she wants to do. It's as simple as that.

No one thinks there's anything wrong with boys being boys or girls being girls, the problem people like me have is with society forcing boys to be boys and girls to be girls. Why is blue a boy's colour? Why is pink a girl's colour? Do you think the children themselves chose these colours? Is that a big deal? Probably not, but it applies to so much more than just colours. It programs children at an early age and then they grow up, the effect it has is irreversible and that's absolutely criminal, in my mind, because then you end up having to discuss this time and time again.

Why did @FoolKiller's daughter want to do girly things? I don't know, but I somehow doubt she was isolated from society and just thought 'hey, dad, I want to play with dolls'. Maybe girls at school asked what kind of dolls she played with, maybe she was laughed at when she said 'I play with Lego' - I don't know what happened and obviously I'd never presume to. I'm not saying there was no way it was entirely due to the fact that she's a girl and naturally wants to do girly things, but it strikes me as unlikely that society didn't have any influence. It's that influence that I disagree with, because who decides what that influence should be, and why?

I got laid the other day so I must be doing something right.

No comment!


Edit: Bloody hell. This must be my longest post ever.

 

[Pseudopod]

Edit: Bloody hell. This must be my longest post ever.

That's perfectly fine because it's a really good post.

You said things a lot more structured and eloquently than I would have been able to .

 

[Nessy]

I have nothing of real value to add to this discussion, but i will say that my partner is a better driver than me..
And when she was younger, she had far more complex Lego Technic sets, and a cooler Transformers collection.

 

[Pseudopod]

You should probably marry her.

 

[mirial]

I think another test of how we see femininity is in how girls react to Anna vs Elsa in Frozen. Elsa spends half the movie being the villain of her own story. She threatens to destroy the entire kingdom and creates monsters. She should be scary. But the toys hit the shelf and Elsa stuff was impossible to find. Anna stuff was always available. Every kid I have asked why they like Elsa more say she is pretty. Make a non-traditional female character who is the hero and the youngest kids don't care when they have the leggy blonde princess instead.

Who wants to guess why Brave slid under the radar?

I haven't seen the film but having just seen a picture of them, the eyes of Elsa was enough to say it all. Elsa is an Alpha-dominant female, but kids aren't going to realise that except a few with the perception of Picasso. I'd choose comfort over speed not out of insecurity, but because I couldn't be bothered with constantly being told how to run my life!

 

[Pseudopod]

Elsa also has the cool magical superpowers, which Anna does not have. That could be a factor.

Also I really liked Brave

 

[FoolKiller]

Why did @FoolKiller's daughter want to do girly things? I don't know, but I somehow doubt she was isolated from society and just thought 'hey, dad, I want to play with dolls'. Maybe girls at school asked what kind of dolls she played with, maybe she was laughed at when she said 'I play with Lego' - I don't know what happened and obviously I'd never presume to.

First of all, I mentioned up until she was two, because that was when we put her in daycare. That was when the obvious outside influences were out of our direct control for portions of the day.

Let's turn this around a bit. What if she said she wanted to play with cars (and she still does some)? What would that mean?

I'm not saying there was no way it was entirely due to the fact that she's a girl and naturally wants to do girly things, but it strikes me as unlikely that society didn't have any influence. It's that influence that I disagree with, because who decides what that influence should be, and why?

I do. Because I'm the parent. End. Of. Story. It is the exact same reason why my parents were informed that my kids will not be around a smoker and they will not visit homes where someone smokes indoors. They tried to argue and I hit them with, "My child. My rules."

But let me throw you for a loop.

Ask her what she wants to be when she gets older and she will say firefight. If you ask about being a princess she will tell you she is a princess now, but she will be a firefighter when she gets older.



I think it is right to wonder why people act surprised when a female is a car enthusiast. I also think it is wrong to think that there is something wrong with traditional female and interests being pursued by females. Why act like a female who doesn't want to do the job her father or husband does is a victim? If she is happy then she doesn't need to overcome anything. This weird crusade of wanting women to be more like men is actually kind of disturbing. It gets treated like a girl shouldn't like dolls and when she does it is a problem that we need to blame someone for. We have no way of knowing who does or doesn't like dolls, but any time someone tries to give an example of where a girl showed a natural tendency to do so the immediate response is, 'society did it.' Maybe she just likes dolls and that person is being judgmental.

Also I really liked Brave

As did I. I kind of forced it on my daughter, holding her through the "scary bear" scenes. She has a toy Merida bow and arrow set that she is hopeless with and I make stick to the wall (suction cup) every time. She has friends over and wants me to show off how I can shoot it.

 

[sesselpupser]

@FoolKiller I should first say that I'm sorry, my first thought when replying to Keef was to ignore his mention of you and your daughter but then I reconsidered thinking I'd explained what I meant well enough, but now reading your reply I regret doing so regardless of how adequately I explained what I was trying to say. I didn't mean to make it personal or anything, but I should've seen that's exactly what I was doing - sorry about that. Also I have to admit I haven't actually read any of the other posts except Keef's first and second because I wanted to respond to those directly so I've clearly missed something. But, as you've responded:

Let's turn this around a bit. What if she said she wanted to play with cars (and she still does some)? What would that mean?

Well, to me it would mean that the things you did when she was younger took hold and she was less influenced by the interactions she had with society 'in the wild', I suppose. I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're getting at here, though, you might need to dumb it down/explain a little for me.

I do. Because I'm the parent. End. Of. Story. It is the exact same reason why my parents were informed that my kids will not be around a smoker and they will not visit homes where someone smokes indoors. They tried to argue and I hit them with, "My child. My rules."

Of course, I wasn't questioning that at all and I apologise if it came across that way. However, it seems that you're talking about filtering the information society is broadcasting through every possible channel, but the it's message you're filtering that I was referring to. Things like photoshopped models on magazine covers, the idealised presentation of men and women on TV, in films and in music videos, music itself and how it talks about men and women, games and how they shape what boys (and girls, to a lesser extent) think a woman should be and what's an acceptable way of interacting with women, strangers/friends/teachers at school, on the street, at home, on the phone, on the internet and so on all acting on how they've interpreted this data, so on and so forth. It's far beyond the scope of this thread to try to work out from where this message has originated, who perpetuates it (if it's any single entity - I personally think it's just societal memes, for the most part, backed up by advertising), whether they're doing it consciously or not and so on, but the fact is notions like 'marry a rich man and make babies' or 'women aren't supposed to be engineers' have come from somewhere. Keef is right in that they originated 160,000 years or more ago, but they're severely out of date notions and yet they're still being perpetuated.

But let me throw you for a loop.

Ask her what she wants to be when she gets older and she will say firefight. If you ask about being a princess she will tell you she is a princess now, but she will be a firefighter when she gets older.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but I can't think of anything useful to say in response so I'll leave it here.

Edit:

I think it is right to wonder why people act surprised when a female is a car enthusiast. I also think it is wrong to think that there is something wrong with traditional female and interests being pursued by females. Why act like a female who doesn't want to do the job her father or husband does is a victim? If she is happy then she doesn't need to overcome anything. This weird crusade of wanting women to be more like men is actually kind of disturbing. It gets treated like a girl shouldn't like dolls and when she does it is a problem that we need to blame someone for. We have no way of knowing who does or doesn't like dolls, but any time someone tries to give an example of where a girl showed a natural tendency to do so the immediate response is, 'society did it.' Maybe she just likes dolls and that person is being judgmental.

I agree completely, maybe I came across wrong or didn't read my posts thoroughly enough before posting them.

What I've been talking about isn't about making women be more like men, it's about removing the obstacles that women have should they wish to take on traditionally male roles and vice versa, that's what equality is in my opinion. As I said before, what would satisfy me is if a woman could just decide one day that she wants to be an engineer and then go and do it the exact same way I did, without any additional friction caused by her gender. If not one single woman ever actually does it makes no difference to me whatsoever, it's their decision and if they're happy doing what they're doing then that's great. But, if it would make them happy to be an engineer and something, anything was stopping them or preventing them from achieving what I am able to achieve just because she's a woman - that's not good.

The problem isn't whether or not one girl wants to play with dolls, though. The barriers she will face come from everyone else. If things continue the way they are and engineering (I'm using this as an example, of course, it could be anything) continues to be "a man's career", it's going to be a problem. Choice of childhood toys isn't the be-all and end-all, but I recently saw a photo (I wish I could find it) of two packets of five Lego figures. The blue 'boy' box had five men who were engineers, scientists and doctors, while the pink 'girl' box had, I don't even know what, one was a baker, I remember that much. In any case, it prompted this, which is fair enough really.

Edit: Man, I'm really failing tonight.

 

[Exorcet]

Why did @FoolKiller's daughter want to do girly things? I don't know, but I somehow doubt she was isolated from society and just thought 'hey, dad, I want to play with dolls'. Maybe girls at school asked what kind of dolls she played with, maybe she was laughed at when she said 'I play with Lego' - I don't know what happened and obviously I'd never presume to. I'm not saying there was no way it was entirely due to the fact that she's a girl and naturally wants to do girly things, but it strikes me as unlikely that society didn't have any influence. It's that influence that I disagree with, because who decides what that influence should be, and why?

I can see where you're coming from, but I think you might actually be taking things out of proportion a little. Yes, there is societal influence and yes it tends to favor "the norm", but there is a difference between active conditioning and observation. While many ads, movies, etc will imply that a girl will like pink/dolls/gossip it's not actually trying to force that rule on anyone. The ads and movies are mirroring reality to a degree. As a parent you'd want to make sure your children don't read into things that aren't there or don't wrongly conclude that something may be wrong with them for being different. You shouldn't try to shut them off from society though, that can be just as damaging. The influence itself isn't something that is managed by anyone, it emerges naturally.

When it comes to evaluating a specific case, it's also important to look at each case as a specific one. Foolkiller's daughter just happens to like "girly" things. The world might be full of stereotypes, but those stereotypes are sometimes based in reality to a degree. Statistically, a girl would like things that many girls like. This is not an absolute rule though, and some girls will grow up without associating to things typical of their gender. Some friends I grew up with were never into the usual girl stuff. The same goes for some members of my family which tends to conform to the stereotype behavior strongly in some cases. If people are going against the stereotypes, then the influence of society is not by itself a determining factor. That works in both directions.

 

[sesselpupser]

I can see where you're coming from, but I think you might actually be taking things out of proportion a little. Yes, there is societal influence and yes it tends to favor "the norm", but there is a difference between active conditioning and observation. While many ads, movies, etc will imply that a girl will like pink/dolls/gossip it's not actually trying to force that rule on anyone. The ads and movies are mirroring reality to a degree. As a parent you'd want to make sure your children don't read into things that aren't there or don't wrongly conclude that something may be wrong with them for being different. You shouldn't try to shut them off from society though, that can be just as damaging. The influence itself isn't something that is managed by anyone, it emerges naturally.

When it comes to evaluating a specific case, it's also important to look at each case as a specific one. Foolkiller's daughter just happens to like "girly" things. The world might be full of stereotypes, but those stereotypes are sometimes based in reality to a degree. Statistically, a girl would like things that many girls like. This is not an absolute rule though, and some girls will grow up without associating to things typical of their gender. Some friends I grew up with were never into the usual girl stuff. The same goes for some members of my family which tends to conform to the stereotype behavior strongly in some cases. If people are going against the stereotypes, then the influence of society is not by itself a determining factor. That works in both directions.

Yeah, it's certainly a complex question for a casual onlooker like myself, I don't even have any children so my opinion is going to be different and uninformed anyway. But I wasn't suggesting that anyone should be shut off from society, more that the way society does this stuff should change and I believe that's in part what the modern feminist (let's not forget there are many, many types of feminism) movement wants to influence.

Also, I personally believe that the media portraying 'being a girl' as pink/dolls/gossip isn't forcing it on anyone directly, but if enough young girls see that kind of thing and think "Yeah, actually I like pink, dolls and gossip, I'll assume everyone else does and anyone that differs shall be mocked until they change their mind or are ostracised" it's much the same effect in the end. It's how kids are, I had a pretty hard time when I was younger because I hated football. Society apparently wanted me to like football - kids would play football, trade football stickers, talk about whatever team beating the other team - but my family never had any interest in it so I guess it didn't 'take' because I didn't have a dad who was into it. I still don't like football and I still feel like I'm regarded as weird by other men for it, even though there are plenty of people like me.

Anyway, I don't know what I'm saying any more.

 

[McLaren]

I just had a brief look at that "Black Dragon Blog", the author seems like a typical pick-up artist.

Seems like?

 

[DK]

Seems like?

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt, I only looked at the page for about 30 seconds before I was worried about suddenly growing a neckbeard.

 

[Nessy]

I had a pretty hard time when I was younger because I hated football. Society apparently wanted me to like football - kids would play football, trade football stickers, talk about whatever team beating the other team - but my family never had any interest in it so I guess it didn't 'take' because I didn't have a dad who was into it. I still don't like football and I still feel like I'm regarded as weird by other men for it, even though there are plenty of people like me.

Same here, especially when others notice my brummie accent and ask "You support Villa or City?" I'm usually greeted with a look of thinly veiled disgust, when i tell them i support neither.

 

[FoRiZon]

These kind of stereotyping is the main core for Socialism.

You are regarded as weird for even having your own opinion. Thank god its wouldn't be like some countries where that can get you in prison or be killed.

I talked this in practice aka in reality, not just in theory.