Gender Roles

[Perseus]

In Christian theology pneumatology refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. The English word comes from two Greek words: πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and λογος (logos, teaching about). Pneumatology would normally include study of the person of the Holy Spirit, and the works of the Holy Spirit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatology

NB: Tolkeins Black Riders had bad breath.

 

[ElectricWizard]

I'm a feminist. Of course, I'm a male, so when I say feminist, I mean just that, rather than 'womanist' (men r evil k kill them!!!!).

 

[Devercia]

'Womanist' means the same thing as feminist with the exception that 'womanist' entirely limits its subject to human females rather than feminism, which makes no distiction. As far as man hating, that is not part of either term, but is compatible with both. There is a term similar to misogyny that refers to hating men that I can't think of.

If your going to attach a word to the man-haters it would best if it accurately described them instead of a word that means the same thing, such as 'antimasculinist.' Unfortunately for the more level headed feminist, the manhaters are also more feminist than the moderates.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Fun thread. I may have missed a few points in my skimming. So, apologies for what I've missed.

First, I noticed some folks talked about comparing sex to gender. After all, there is this culturally induced expectation that everyone is either a man or a woman, but that turns out not to be so. Once we recognize that, we have to consider not only masculine women and feminine men, but all kinds of other options.

In addition to XX women and XY men (the norms), there are XXY and XXXY among males and XO among females. It turns out that there are also all kinds of phenotypic traits that have to be considered, some of which lead to things like early gender reassignment surgeries.

But, that's just one avenue to pursue. There is also the more obviously biological. Nature sets a traditional (i.e. XX) female's threshold for responding to infant cues very low. The breasts of lactating women, for example, will sometimes spontaneously release milk even before the woman consciously registers the whimpering of her infant (or, on some occasions, another--even unrelated --infant). In traditional (i.e. XY) men, the threshold is set very high. Unless the man's brain registers that an infant, which he knows is his, or a female, which he knows shares a child with him, is in trouble, the hormones responsible for prodding him into action may not even kick in. (Interesting tests on some nonhuman primates, using mimicry, have been fundamental in helping establish this, and then later tests reveal some aspects of how this works in other nonhuman primates and in us.)

There are good reasons for nature tweaking our responses in this way, most of them having to do with the success of our ancestors (where success is defined in terms of how many grandchildren one leaves behind by the time of one's death, and more deeply defined as the total number of one's decendants). Our ancestral mothers who didn't respond quickly to their infant's needs sometimes had those infants taken by cats or snakes or other predators. Our ancestral fathers who responded to quickly might have been "out-sired" by other males who ignored most calls in favor of seeking more females to attempt to impregnate.

Anyway, thought I'd throw this into the mix of an interesting debate.

Dave

 

[grey matters]

Gender roles limit human potential. I understand gender roles make some people feel more comfortable because then everybody knows how they should act and no one needs to think, but our society needs to mature beyond this need.
A comedian once told me the formula for humor it is: life + logic = humor. With this in mind here are some of the more ludicrous expectations of me as a female.

I am a woman therefore I should like shoes.
I am a woman therefore I should remember to bring the ketchup for the Cub Scout camp out. (can't men remember ketchup just as well as women?)
I am a woman therefore I must talk on the phone a lot.
I am an objective and logical female therefore I must be gay. I mean no offense to any gay people I am merely pointing out someone else's stupid prerequisite for being gay, and I think the more accurate word to use here is trans gender but I don't think this distinction matters to those who believe the above illogic.

Ah gender roles. you got to love them.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i think the only set role is that the woman should be the one being penetrated during intercourse. everything else is your (men and women) own doing. people should be able to choose, by their actions, how people treat them, without any prejudice. will that ever happen? probably not, just because of our biological wiring (thanks a lot, God) but its something to work for.

 

[ElectricWizard]

I am an objective and logical female therefore I must be gay.

I agree with this. If you're objective and logical, be happy about it.

 

[Thomas Young]

Always Nature.

 

[Waterstiller]

I like this thread for the most part. There are lots of things I'd like to respond to but I don't really have the energy anymore. So I'll just say a couple things.

It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head. - Sally Kempton

Not too many people realize the full weight of their socialization. I was more conscious of it than most due to my own incongruence. I was raised as a 'boy' but have a gender identity that is more on the female side of the continuum. Despite the world's effort, my gender never changed. Despite my own effort I could never just be the guy they wanted me to be. At 22, instead of killing myself, I made the decision to at least try being me before bowing out. I thought I was going to lose my entire family, all of my friends, any hope of making a living, and being seen as a freak for the rest of my life.

That ended up not being the case, and though I have gone through hell, I've not lost a single friend or loved one. I did lose male privilege, however. I even lost heterosexual privilege. One of the most interesting parts was going from visibly straight to gay while staying with the same girlfriend. Another weird part was beginning to receive attention from straight guys; from holding doors open to pulling me out of my chair to dance(..hell). I get stares wherever I go and I'm always analyzing whether it's because I'm just a really tall girl (6'2") or because they can tell for some reason. My voice is shit, but it's almost comical how some people respond when I open my mouth.

Gender, biological sex, and sexual orientation are all very different things. Further, they're not binary like most people think. You can be anywhere on each line.

Gender roles are as fictitious as the binary sex, gender, and sexuality systems. I don't want to argue any of this (I lack the will to do so). If anyone has any serious questions about what it's like to cross the imaginary divide I'd be glad to answer them. Be sure to check out this cisgender privilege checklist.
​

 

[fullerene]

I actually do have a question, just concerning the reasons for sex changes for that reason.

If your whole idea/philosophy/whatever is that the socially constructed gender identities never fit you (like you said, you identify more with the female side of the spectrum, even though you were raised "boy"), why go through a sex change to remedy the incongruity? I feel like... in one sense it sounds like you're saying "I'm going to be me. Screw you culture." But in another sense it seems like you're lending credence to the validity of gender constructs by altering yourself physiologically to "fit them" better.

I'm not sure what you mean "identify with the female side of the spectrum" of gender identity... but I'm rather sensitive, even paranoid (in real life) about caring for other people's feelings, which is a feminine trait, but it makes me think "I'm going to be me. Screw you culture and your gender constructs." I think of it like "if my sex doesn't match the culture's gender constructs, I'll renovate them myself."

Why did you decide to change yourself instead?

 

[Waterstiller]

That's a good question.

Mostly, my decision was fueled by just feeling weird in my own body. Puberty was a nightmare; for any girl here, just imagine you started growing some facial hair. For any guy here, how would you feel if you developed full breasts, and then were chastised for not taking your shirt off at the beach? It's kinda like that. I hated my body growing up.. and now it actually feels really comfortable. I also enjoy what I see in the mirror for the first time in my life. Before, whenever I looked in the mirror I kinda felt like Sam in Quantum Leap - what I was seeing just wasn't me. But everyone else saw 'him' and I was forced to fit the part.

It's based on my body more than conforming to any social constructs, but there is a major social part to my transition. I need to be related to as a woman because being related to as a man has always felt wrong. The first thing people tend to notice when they meet someone is whether they're a man 'or' woman and depending on what they perceive, things tend to change quite a bit. It's hard to explain, but when your thoughts are more aligned with women and they perceive you as a 'man' there's always a barrier. And men are the same way. I hate it when men think I'm one of them.

Further down on the list, sex just feels off as a guy. I'm mainly attracted to chapstick or butch lesbians and some straight men. I needed to be related to as a woman, with a woman's body. I'll not go into details, but just try to imagine your partner never responding to you the way you want to be responded to. Or imagine if you were forced to be a top when you were a bottom. Or forced to be gay when you're straight. Or if every person you've truly been attracted to didn't like you back. When your gender identity doesn't match your body, it creates all sorts of problems.

It's not a process of trying to be one gender/sex or the other for me. Rather, it's just trying to be me and stripping away all "should" behaviors. And all "should" body parts. I also have to strip away all 'should' female gender roles I doubt I'd ever be caught wearing a pretty dress, and I have major issues with wearing make-up. I'm not a fan of pink. I'm only working on my voice because it makes my life easier, but I have issues with that because I don't particularly mind it. If I could have things my way, I'd prefer people use neutral pronouns (ze, hir instead of she, her). Unfortunately I have to resolve my pangender gender identity in a society that doesn't get it yet. And "woman" feels a lot more accurate than "man". So much so that I'd go through all this trouble.

I hope I answered your question somewhere in there.

 

[Waterstiller]

i think the only set role is that the woman should be the one being penetrated during intercourse. everything else is your (men and women) own doing. people should be able to choose, by their actions, how people treat them, without any prejudice. will that ever happen? probably not, just because of our biological wiring (thanks a lot, God) but its something to work for.

Just some food for thought. There are no set roles.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Just some food for thought. There are no set roles.

that looks painful lol. whatever grates peoples cheese though, i suppose.

 

[Thomas Young]

I think women are becoming more masculine though behaving more laddish than they used to with taking up male dominated sports like boxing, and football to name a couple. You can say I'm sexist but I don't think women should box or binge drink, neither suits them. Football they perhaps can get away with but I don't see the point because their not as good as we are at it and therefore no-one watches them. Also, I do get a little annoyed when women think they can compete on our level physically and get annoyed when we say they can't compete with men etc. because they can't there not built for it. Stick to mind games, your far better at that.

 

[Decaf]

Even if genetically the average woman is less muscular than the average man that's not a reason to exclude or even segregate sports (I believe having men and women specific sports is inherently demeaning and has much more impact on viewership than actual ability). Its a false dichotomy, just like women having more cognitive ability. Those traits exist as spectrums, not dichotomy between the sexes. If they did then that would mean men should leave the thinking to the women. Imagine if that's how our culture thought. If Women have larger corpus callosums, then they should run the country and be in science while us men do the heavy lifting.

The fact of the matter is that averages are deceptive and poor judges of an individual's ability. If everything were fair, sports that require primarily muscle strength would be dominated by men (well, we got that one) and complex thinking jobs that require a lot of multitasking like politics and diplomacy would be dominated by women (damn, and we were doing so well).

Most work that is to be done is not dependent on the things that we seem to value so much like muscles and brain versatility. A lot of it is upbringing and unusual perception. Work ethic and creative confidence. When someone can convince me that even a slight majority of skills required for any form of meaningful success are sex chromosome dependent, I'll agree that gender roles have a place. Until then, I believe people should fill the roles that fit their abilities, not their genitalia.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Even if genetically the average woman is less muscular than the average man that's not a reason to exclude or even segregate sports (I believe having men and women specific sports is inherently demeaning and has much more impact on viewership than actual ability). Its a false dichotomy, just like women having more cognitive ability. Those traits exist as spectrums, not dichotomy between the sexes. If they did then that would mean men should leave the thinking to the women. Imagine if that's how our culture thought. If Women have larger corpus callosums, then they should run the country and be in science while us men do the heavy lifting.

The fact of the matter is that averages are deceptive and poor judges of an individual's ability. If everything were fair, sports that require primarily muscle strength would be dominated by men (well, we got that one) and complex thinking jobs that require a lot of multitasking like politics and diplomacy would be dominated by women (damn, and we were doing so well).

Most work that is to be done is not dependent on the things that we seem to value so much like muscles and brain versatility. A lot of it is upbringing and unusual perception. Work ethic and creative confidence. When someone can convince me that even a slight majority of skills required for any form of meaningful success are sex chromosome dependent, I'll agree that gender roles have a place. Until then, I believe people should fill the roles that fit their abilities, not their genitalia.

well put and deserving of a quote so that it can be posted again with me declaring my advocacy.

 

[Thomas Young]

Yes, but people should stay in the realms of their own ability. Women have a different physical threshold to men, therefore some sports they shouldn't try and compete with us at. I just think women should be womwn and men should be men and stop all this crossing over, it just creates arguments. No your roles respectiveley. You respect me as aman and I'll respect you as a woman. If a woman does boxing for example it just invites criticism from men and that woman would lose our respect for them as a woman.

 

[Kuu]

Yes, but people should stay in the realms of their own ability. Women have a different physical threshold to men, therefore some sports they shouldn't try and compete with us at. I just think women should be womwn and men should be men and stop all this crossing over, it just creates arguments. No your roles respectiveley. You respect me as aman and I'll respect you as a woman. If a woman does boxing for example it just invites criticism from men and that woman would lose our respect for them as a woman.

But that is assuming all men have the same abilities, and all women having the same abilities... which is not true. I respect people on the basis of their ideas, not their gender...

 

[Decaf]

Yes, but people should stay in the realms of their own ability. Women have a different physical threshold to men, therefore some sports they shouldn't try and compete with us at.

But that's what I'm arguing against. People should pursue the areas of their strengths, but those strengths are not defined by their gender even if the average suggests that it is. Its destructive to judge someone's potential by a single characteristic. What if that characteristic were race?

 

[Waterstiller]

Then I couldn't dance!


... I can't, btw.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, but people should stay in the realms of their own ability. Women have a different physical threshold to men, therefore some sports they shouldn't try and compete with us at.

Well, it's true that there are quantifiable differences between genders (healthy women have a higher percentage of body fat than men, etc.) that result in performance differences, which is why the olympics separates competition by gender.

I don't think that expands into other areas as much the conversation has gone, though (intellectual, for example).

And yes, there's a spectrum of ability as someone else has mentioned, with overlap.

I just think women should be womwn and men should be men and stop all this crossing over, it just creates arguments.

Yes, that's a wonderful reason to pursue segregation -- "Too much bother."

No your roles respectiveley. You respect me as aman and I'll respect you as a woman.

And what does that look like?

 

[Thomas Young]

All I'm sayin roit, is in the old days roit, men knew who de men were, women knew who de women were, men knew who de women were, and women knew who de men were.

 

[Jennywocky]

All I'm sayin roit, is in the old days roit, men knew who de men were, women knew who de women were, men knew who de women were, and women knew who de men were.

'roooooiiiiiiiiit, guv'nor!

 

[Decaf]

All I'm sayin roit, is in the old days roit, men knew who de men were, women knew who de women were, men knew who de women were, and women knew who de men were.

But what about men with F in their type? (approximately 35-40% of men) Women with T in their type? (the same) That attitude nearly guarantees that 35-40% of the culture's population will find it exceedingly difficult to achieve both self-realization and outward success. I'm not saying this is a majority cause, but I believe that some cases of obscured sexual identity are caused by the culture deciding that a person's dominant judging function is inappropriate for their genitalia.

 

[severus]

sToP tAlKiN lYkE tHaT pLz iTz HuRtIn Me EyEz
---
As far as I am concerned, sir, what you are describing is just a step away from blatant sexism and getting closer every post.

 

[Waterstiller]

Yeah, Thomas seems quite the misogynist. His attitudes towards women in the "INTP courting" thread, in his raps, and especially in this thread are quite sexist.

I also agree with the people in the narcissism thread in doubting that Thomas is INTP.

 

[Dissident]

I think that whats most important is the individual, regardless of whatever group you may want to put them in. If we predefined a specific role for people then we would be treating them as parts of a machine, but we are an end, not a mean.
If there is a couple in which (for example) the NT woman feels like working and the SF man feels like taking care of the children, I dont see whats wrong with that. We should all do whatever the hell we want and look for people who are complemental to us so we dont have to fit in some place in which not only we dont fit but we dont even want to.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I think that whats most important is the individual, regardless of whatever group you may want to put them in. If we predefined a specific role for people then we would be treating them as parts of a machine, but we are an end, not a mean.
If there is a couple in which (for example) the NT woman feels like working and the SF man feels like taking care of the children, I dont see whats wrong with that. We should all do whatever the hell we want and look for people who are complemental to us so we dont have to fit in some place in which not only we dont fit but we dont even want to.

i concur

 

[Thomas Young]

What you think is or isn't my personality type is irrelevant as I have done the tests numerous times and seen the results. Maybe I am a little sexist or just old fashioned. I dunno, but I prefer women to be women not tomboy ladettes and vice versa with men. For me it just doesn't work, and I don't have much time for it.

 

[Jennywocky]

What you think is or isn't my personality type is irrelevant as I have done the tests numerous times and seen the results.

That doesn't really mean anything -- my stereotypical ISTJ father-in-law took the test and scored ENFJ (!), which was utterly wrong -- but I agree that your type is irrelevant here in a discussion of gender roles. Who cares what type you are? Your ideas either stand or sink on their own.

Maybe I am a little sexist or just old fashioned. I dunno, but I prefer women to be women not tomboy ladettes and vice versa with men. For me it just doesn't work, and I don't have much time for it.

Preferences are fine, we all have them.
We just have to be willing to accept their ramifications.

 

[Decaf]

As a side note, using the term old-fashioned to denote a misogynous attitude is inappropriate. Yes there have certainly been times where women were more disparaged than others, but its been something of a mix through history. By claiming the old-fashioned argument you suggest that your perspective is the natural one, that the rest of us have at some point changed our minds.

You are a misogynist. Its certainly not a murderer or child molester, so don't think I'm calling you the devil, but I think its important that we don't disguise our views with semantics.

 

[Thomas Young]

Watch it Decaf that's a strong word to be using. I never said I disliked women I just like them to behave in a certain way if I'm going to bed them. That's not misogyney its just sexual preference.

 

[Decaf]

Watch it Decaf that's a strong word to be using. I never said I disliked women I just like them to behave in a certain way if I'm going to bed them. That's not misogyney its just sexual preference.

Misogyny is the combination of the morphemes mis- (meaning bad), gyn (meaning woman), and -y (meaning an attitude that has to do with the preceding morphemes). By that rationale misogyny means having a negative attitude towards women. Perhaps this is another case of my desire to be precise with my words despite the common usage, but I don't believe there has to be dislike or hatred, just a belief that you are better than them. If you prefer we can refer to it as Male Supremacy.

Name me three high profile jobs that women would be better suited to than men.

 

[Jesin]

Watch it Decaf that's a strong word to be using. I never said I disliked women I just like them to behave in a certain way if I'm going to bed them. That's not misogyney its just sexual preference.

So you're not saying that "all women should behave X way", you're saying "all women I sleep with should behave X way"? Did I get that right?

 

[severus]

Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.
-Mencken

 

[fullerene]

haha... watching packs of ESFJs bash each other behind one anothers' backs throughout high school, that's pretty funny. Actually, on a side note sev, since I don't think my high school had any INxx girls (very small)... are you all any different than that in groups?

Also decaf, not trying to take sides or anything (I actually haven't read what you've been discussing at all, so I have no context on this conversation), but what do you mean by "high profile" jobs? I'm just curious cause I always felt like feminists were unknowingly bashing most of the jobs that women held by insisting that they weren't "good enough." I personally think that homeschooling the children while my wife went to work would be like a dream job... I'm not sure I'd call it "high profile," but maybe I'm just reading into "high profile" wrong and thinking you mean something closer to "prestigious."

 

[Decaf]

Also decaf, not trying to take sides or anything (I actually haven't read what you've been discussing at all, so I have no context on this conversation), but what do you mean by "high profile" jobs? I'm just curious cause I always felt like feminists were unknowingly bashing most of the jobs that women held by insisting that they weren't "good enough." I personally think that homeschooling the children while my wife went to work would be like a dream job... I'm not sure I'd call it "high profile," but maybe I'm just reading into "high profile" wrong and thinking you mean something closer to "prestigious."

Right, probably should have clarified. What I really mean is three jobs that Thomas would consider highly desirable for himself that women can do better. And no cheating with breast cancer inspector.

 

[grey matters]

Well here's something that should screw with you and isn't too off topic My husband of 16 years describes me as "a man trapped in a woman's body" and he likes it becaus as he says "I can get along with the male part and have sex with the female part."

There is something about this statment that is a bit uncomfortable for me. I feel perfectly normal I just can't understand why more women arn't like me. I grew up in a family of thinking types two of whom were women. Being objective, logical and not ruled by feelings was normal. I really didn't start feeling abnormal untill I got older and had to endure things like baby and bridal showers (yuck), group trips to the bathroom, nylon stockings, and those cursed high heeled shoes (If I could go back in time I would find the person who invented those things and shove one up his ass).

 

[Hammett]

Well here's something that should screw with you and isn't too off topic My husband of 16 years describes me as "a man trapped in a woman's body" and he likes it becaus as he says "I can get along with the male part and have sex with the female part."

There is something about this statment that is a bit uncomfortable for me. I feel perfectly normal I just can't understand why more women arn't like me. I grew up in a family of thinking types two of whom were women. Being objective, logical and not ruled by feelings was normal. I really didn't start feeling abnormal untill I got older and had to endure things like baby and bridal showers (yuck), group trips to the bathroom, nylon stockings, and those cursed high heeled shoes (If I could go back in time I would find the person who invented those things and shove one up his ass).

I think many NT women would be able to relate to that.

 

[Decaf]

I think many NT women would be able to relate to that.

Agreed. As the son of an ENTJ mother I can at least attest to that second hand. To me that seems the whole point. Our definitions of male and female don't take into account that "masculinity" (a.k.a. Thinking) and "femininity" (a.k.a. Feeling) are not gender specific.

 

[Thomas Young]

Misogyny is the combination of the morphemes mis- (meaning bad), gyn (meaning woman), and -y (meaning an attitude that has to do with the preceding morphemes). By that rationale misogyny means having a negative attitude towards women. Perhaps this is another case of my desire to be precise with my words despite the common usage, but I don't believe there has to be dislike or hatred, just a belief that you are better than them. If you prefer we can refer to it as Male Supremacy.

Name me three high profile jobs that women would be better suited to than men.

A mysogynist is someone that hates women, but I love women. Of course they can have their annoying ways or whatever but I don't dislike woman I dislike when woman are like men or try act hard or try to go beyond the realms of their own ability. To answer your question - Not many that I'm aware of. We are better than them at the majority of things aren't we? Name a woman that's actually stands at the very top of a high profile job above all men.

So you're not saying that "all women should behave X way", you're saying "all women I sleep with should behave X way"? Did I get that right?

If they behave in a way that I find attractive. It's all good, if they don't I won't bother with them on that level.

 

[Fleur]

A mysogynist is someone that hates women, but I love women. Of course they can have their annoying ways or whatever but I don't dislike woman I dislike when woman are like men or try act hard or try to go beyond the realms of their own ability. To answer your question - Not many that I'm aware of. We are better than them at the majority of things aren't we?

Can you actually count this mystical "majority of things"? Or is it just an another "a lot of things, but no reasonable proof" situation?

Why, in your opinion, it`s alright, when man are "trying to go beyond their realms of ability"?

And why these "realms" are made? I don`t think, that male interest in mechanics (for example) is something biologically programmed - it`s more based on stereotypes and "natural habitude" created by human mind. Acutally, these interest differences is started at early childhood, when little girl is told, that "only boys like to play with cars" (and little boy have to hear that "dolls are only girl thing"). All this strikes a roots in children minds, so they`re taking it as undoubtable truth and sending it further, giving this "knowledge" to their own offsprings, but this kind of development may lead humans to crack. It`s better if both of genders have same knowledge and odds - it makes society to became more sufficient and fully realise it`s potentional.

As I already said somewhere on this thread - the specie can continue with one man, but it will disappear if there was only one woman.

Name a woman that's actually stands at the very top of a high profile job above all men.

Michelle Bachelet, Tarja Halonen, Angela Merkel, Vaira Vike-Freiberga... Do being a head of some country fits in this category?

 

[Thomas Young]

Ok, ok, I'm a sexist pig.

 

[Calamedes]

Fleur, your list of women is very accurate, but they don't include those from the past as well. That list would take many years to write. Can't forget Golda Meir (PM of Israel through 2 wars), Amelia Aerheart (sp?) who was one of the best pilots of her time, Sojourner Truth (famous name in American history, led hundreds of thousands of blacks out of slavery into the North during and preceding the Civil War), "Mother" Theresa, ...

screw it, I'll like this page.

 

[Devercia]

(If I could go back in time I would find the person who invented those things and shove one up /her/ ass).

Fixed :P

If you want too blame someone, let be society for likeing tall people, women for conforming to that paradigm, and men for not caring enough to do the same.

 

[Jordan~]

Fleur, your list of women is very accurate, but they don't include those from the past as well. That list would take many years to write. Can't forget Golda Meir (PM of Israel through 2 wars), Amelia Aerheart (sp?) who was one of the best pilots of her time, Sojourner Truth (famous name in American history, led hundreds of thousands of blacks out of slavery into the North during and preceding the Civil War), "Mother" Theresa, ...

screw it, I'll like this page.

Elizabeth I!

 

[Decaf]

What? I saw a couple Nobel Prize winners on that list... is that allowed?

I can't believe they left Marie Curie off that list. She's a terribly important figure for physical scientists. Well, at least she's on this one:

Female Nobel Prize Winners

 

[Thomas Young]

...And your clearly all feminists!

 

[Decaf]

...And your clearly all feminists!

I'm an egalitarian, though I am sympathetic to the feminist.

 

[ElectricWizard]

Egalitarian and feminist? What's the difference? Both want equality.