Forum - View topic

Chicks On Anime - Female Crossdressers in Media

What I would like to hear from these "men and women are inherently different and we should all just accept that" is for them to explain exactly how they are different

I know that most women won't stack up physically to most men, but should the ones that do still be excluded simply because they are female?

Modern feminism says we are different, but that society says traditionally womanly traits are considered inferior to traits attributed to men. We need to acknowledge that womanly traits have their benefits and aren't inferior.

Robin: I haven't read or seen any anime/manga where a pretty boy character cross dresses to purposely appeal to girls throughout the whole story. Usually it is just a quick gag, like the classmates in Furuba making Yuki wear a dress, or it's a plot point that the cross dress, like Nuriko from FY.

To take that a little farther now, (And here I really need to emphasis that I am not saying that all women should be like this) why is a more submissive role inferior to a more dominant role? Truely to serve it takes great humility and peace of mind on the part of the servant. A mental strength if you will. Many religions teach that to be humble, to serve and be submissive, carries much more honor then to be the one who is being served. Thus, a submissive woman should be viewed as the equal of a non submissive woman.

Main Entry: sub·mis·sive
Pronunciation: \-ˈmi-siv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1575
: submitting to others <submissive>

There is a difference between obsession with and acceptance of. You can't change the us versus them mentality by saying we are all the same when we are not. The obvious biological differences cannot be minimized in this way. My kid sister is 5'1" and is a motorcycle mechanic, forklift driver and various other things. She is not only very strong, but has the will and intent to be so. What would happen if the motorcycle shop she was working at had to think fast when their star mechanic went out on maternity leave for 3 months? It would be a BIG deal to them because they'd have to hire another mechanic, and then potentially let that mechanic go. It's a 3 mechanic shop, what are the options? What would happen to you as a carpenter if you got pregnant?

Quote:

I know that most women won't stack up physically to most men, but should the ones that do still be excluded simply because they are female?

Yes. Locker rooms, anyone?

Are you seriously arguing that in an event such as the Olympics, men's teams should be pitted against women's? Do you even realize how one sided that would be?

Again, this isn't me bashing on women or "lolz girls suck so stay at home", but a statement of physical fact. Unless you had some really wimpy men, the men would win every time.

There's a reason that certain behaviors and tasks have been attributed to certain genders, and here's a hint: it has nothing to do with "chauvinism" or "oppression". It's simply because certain genders are better suited to certain roles. That's not to say that a girl can't/shouldn't use a jackhammer or a guy can't take care of the kids, but it generally works best if it's the other way around.

This isn't some psychotic rant here. It's a basic, common sense look at the world. However, I do find it sad that I have to qualify every statement with "I'm not bashing women".

It isn't about special treatment. It's about equal treatment.

Uhh.. no one said that every single sport should be co-ed or everyone should use the same locker room.. ^^

Also with your example, who cares if the men won every time?

What I am against is the artificial shoehorning of women into private organizations like sports teams in the name of some perverse definition of "equality". That is neither logical nor equal.

Ugh do you have any idea how patronizing that sounds? It's the same condescending tone used in this article about Eri Yoshida. "Aww, look at that. A woman wants to play on the men's team. Must be a publicity stunt!" Never mind that anyone who displays the necessary skills or merits to qualify for any job, whether in sports or business or child-rearing, should have the same opportunity as their competition, regardless of their sex.

In daily social living, however, it is not always ideal or even preferable to treat men and women as being identical.

For example, let's take public restrooms. If we're going to take this "equality in all areas!" mantra to it's logical conclusion, then we should immediately merge men's and women's restrooms into a single unisex facility. Either that, or men get to start using the women's restrooms. Equality cuts both ways. Somehow though, I don't think "equal treatment" is really what you want.

This is far from the only example, but it's simple, common sense, and any thinking individual can see why this would never work.

Because nobody wants to watch a one sided sporting event. We even have a word for that; it's called "boring".

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not against women being construction workers or department heads or what have you. What I am against is the artificial shoehorning of women into private organizations like sports teams in the name of some perverse definition of "equality". That is neither logical nor equal.

Quote:

It isn't about special treatment. It's about equal treatment.

In the eyes of the law, yes, men and women are(or should be) treated equally. In daily social living, however, it is not always ideal or even preferable to treat men and women as being identical.

For example, let's take public restrooms. If we're going to take this "equality in all areas!" mantra to it's logical conclusion, then we should immediately merge men's and women's restrooms into a single unisex facility. Either that, or men get to start using the women's restrooms. Equality cuts both ways. Somehow though, I don't think "equal treatment" is really what you want.

For example, let's take public restrooms. If we're going to take this "equality in all areas!" mantra to it's logical conclusion, then we should immediately merge men's and women's restrooms into a single unisex facility. Either that, or men get to start using the women's restrooms. Equality cuts both ways. Somehow though, I don't think "equal treatment" is really what you want.

For example, let's take public restrooms. If we're going to take this "equality in all areas!" mantra to it's logical conclusion, then we should immediately merge men's and women's restrooms into a single unisex facility. Either that, or men get to start using the women's restrooms. Equality cuts both ways. Somehow though, I don't think "equal treatment" is really what you want.

Don't go there on religion. Stop. Religion IS all about domination, being subservient to God, etc.

Cloe wrote:

Ugh do you have any idea how patronizing that sounds? It's the same condescending tone used in this article about Eri Yoshida. "Aww, look at that. A woman wants to play on the men's team. Must be a publicity stunt!" Never mind that anyone who displays the necessary skills or merits to qualify for any job, whether in sports or business or child-rearing, should have the same opportunity as their competition, regardless of their sex.

When they actually do have the same skills or merits to qualify for a job, you're right, why should it matter? But I think LordPrometheus is getting at the all-too-common practice of quota filling that goes on in a lot of institutions just to make them look 'well rounded', which is not at all done in the spirit of equality.

We do have unisex bathrooms in places.
Many, many times while I'm waiting for the Ladies Room (single serve type), a man has exited it.

Equality is about human rights, not about the pretense that there is no such thing as gender-specific genitalia.

Quote:

Because nobody wants to watch a one sided sporting event. We even have a word for that; it's called "boring". Please don't get me wrong. I'm not against women being construction workers or department heads or what have you. What I am against is the artificial shoehorning of women into private organizations like sports teams in the name of some perverse definition of "equality". That is neither logical nor equal.

As already pointed out before, no one would lower standards for such activities, so I'm not really sure how it would be one-sided anyway.. especially in a team sport. Even so, I regard people's freedom and equality just a little more than I worry about being bored. -_- If girls are playing on boy's sports teams and getting hurt and failing, they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If they play and are awesome, who cares?

Quote:

Modern feminism says we are different, but that society says traditionally womanly traits are considered inferior to traits attributed to men. We need to acknowledge that womanly traits have their benefits and aren't inferior.

Nobody that I know has ever said that female traits are inferior to males.

Ex. Nobody is trying to say that equality in sports means women are just as good at football as men (comparing professionals; I could wipe the floor with the guys in my P.E. classes). Football tends to utilitze the parts of the body that are favored in men. But women are far better in athletics that involve long distance and flexibility. So why is gymnastics not considered as "pure" a sport as football? ^_-

Are you seriously arguing that in an event such as the Olympics, men's teams should be pitted against women's? Do you even realize how one sided that would be?

...says traditionally womanly traits are considered inferior to traits attributed to men.

The problem there is that in most sports, women can't compete with men evenly, so you'd end up with either integrated teams that have very few women because only a small number would be able to compete at the same level as the men, or you'd get female vs male match ups that end up with lopsided ratio of wins in favor of the males...Sports don't need equality for men and women, they just need to not be restrictive.