What do you think of the feminist movement?

Another subject i’d like us to talk about in order to improve our English. **What do you think of feminism/antisexism? **

Do you think men and women are equals?

Should they have the same rights?

What is the best for boys and girls’ development according to you, should they be raised differently (like it’s the case right now, with parents buying pink clothes/barbies for their daughter(s) and blue clothes/Action Men for their son(s)) because of their sex or should they both be raised the same way (like boys should be allowed to wear dresses and girls should also be bought Action Men if they want to)?

Do you think gender roles (like men = work, women = stay home) should be abolished or do you believe they are innate and healthy for our society?

Yes I think that women and men are equal, and I think they should have the same rights. Why? Well, why not? I mean, why did (and do in certain cases) people think that women were inferior then men? Is it because of their religion?

Boys playing with barbies or wearing pink will be called girls, and that has to change. I think that if you are a girl and play/dress like a boy, than you should not be treated like one. Like that boys and girls could do things the opposite sex would do, and without being made fun of.

I think that the « men = work, women = stay home » isn’t right. But now in our society (except for certain cases), women can choose if they want to stay home or not. But is it better that a mother stays at home if she has a baby/young child if she can.

No i don’t think men and women are equal because of many things.
First, according to science they are different. That’s why there were some games women were not allowed to play in the Antiquity. But nowadays, they ( women ) decide to do what they were not allowed to try 3000 years ago ( the athleticism for example ).

Women are fragile ( due to her anatomy ), less strong than men. So they cannot do what needs strengh and what is reserved for men.

We distinguish several societies in which there’s one where it’s the father who gives his name to his family ( wife and children… ). That’s the most known case.

The women give birth to babies. But a baby will never be given birth to by a man ! That’s a question of physiology.

Referring to international statistics, women’s duration of life is longer than men’s. A woman can live till 70 years old. However, a man can live till 68 years old. In fact, we (men) do a lot of things in our life which women do not do… In spite of that, there are only two years between 68 and 70… Okay ?

Everybody has the same laws, the same rights.
I think it is normal to educate a boy as a boy and a girl as a girl… I don’t know why we’d not be allowed/able to educate a lion as a dog. :??: ( it’s the same case ).
Sometimes the boy or the girl has the other gender’s behaviour… That’s bizarre but what can we do ? Morever the towns ( no-colonized by Europeans ) where the aim religion is Buddism accept this situation without any problems.

The gender roles are already abolished in Europe. At any rate, everybody ( men and women) can work if he wants.
In Africa, certain girls go to school now and then or aren’t inrolled in, unfortunately. So they must stay at home and learn how to take care for their future husbands ( cooking, sleep with them… ) : it’s just the beginning of fate !
In Asia, i really do not know what’s happening, but, we can be sure that differences between men and women will remain and it’ll be still the cause of many discriminations. :frowning:

(Thank you S-O-t-r for corrections… I 'am improving my language visibly)… :slight_smile:

+1

Though, i think the first bold sentence should be « boys who play with barbies and wear pink » and « like that » should be « this way », but i’m not entirely sure. I’ll leave it to someone who knows it better than i do.


The fact that women and men are different is undeniable for sure. But, I don’t think that these differences justify not letting women play specific games. And likewise, I don’t see why anything should be “reserved” for men because women aren’t naturally as strong as men physically. They are completely able to carry out tasks that require a lot of strength; the only difference is that they’ll have to train more than a man to achieve the same results.

I also do not see what the “many things” that men do that women don’t are, especially not in this day and age…

By “abolishing gender roles” I meant entirely. Girls still being bought toy vacuum-cleaners and such by their parents just because they’re girls, or stay-at-home dads being frowned upon (I don’t know if anyone realized, but the TV commercials/series that depict a working mom and a stay at home dad are almost non-existent) shows that the gender roles are still present in our culture, even though there are other cultures where they’re even more present than in the West.

Personally, for education, I completely agree with MissHoney. I don’t see the point of raising a boy “as a boy”. Why should we treat him differently because of his sex? Why not just raise him as a child, independently of his sex, instead (the same applies for girls)? Giving boys/girls a sex-based education could have a really negative impact on the child if, like cameleonX said, (s)he is the type of person who is more like the opposite gender than the one that’s supposed to be his own. I think parents shouldn’t immediately assume a girl wouldn’t like playing with toy cars/trucks and they shouldn’t wonder whether their son is gay or not just because he likes pink stuff or wants to play with dolls. Like MissHoney said, that’s something that imperatively has to change.

These differences are many and not only anatomic. Men and women are also different psychologically that’s why they do not behave similarly. Morever, they do not want the same things, have the same desires. I don’t know what is about colour because there’s a science of it which obeys to particular criterions. Otherwise, a person’s preferred colour does not depend on his/her gender. And then, everybody has the instinct of imitation. A boy will behave as man because of his father and a girl like a woman because of her mother. Why isn’t it the contrary ? it’s just explained by sexual identification. Look ! I am not thinking i’m a woman ! :smiley:

**
Though, i think the first bold sentence [strike]should be[/strike]would be « boys who play with barbies and wear pink » and « like that » [strike]shouldn’t be[/strike] wouldn’t be « this way », but i’m not entirely sure. I’ll leave it to someone who knows it better than i do.**

“should be” is “devrait être”, “would be” is “serait”. Moi, ce que je disais c’était “je pense que la première phrase en gras devrait être (…)", donc c’était correct. Pareil pour le «shouldn’t» que tu as transformé en « wouldn’t » alors que ce n’était pas ce que je voulais dire.

Par contre, ça ma fait remarquer que j’ai écrit le contraire de ce que je voulais dire. Je voulais dire « should be » au lieu de « shouldn’t be », je vais d’ailleurs modifier cela.

**[strike]These differences are many[/strike] There are many differences and not only anatomic ones (optional). Men and women are also different psychologically that’s why they do not behave similarly. Morever, they do not want the same things, have the same desires. I don’t know about colour because there’s a science of colour which obeys to particular criterions. Otherwise, a person’s preferred colour do not depend on his/her gender. And then, everybody has the instinct of imitation. A boy will behave as man because of his father and a girl like a woman because of her mother.Why isn’t it the contrary ? it’s just explained by sexual identification. Look ! I am not thinking i’m a woman ! **

(1)“Many” is always placed before the noun it modifies, it’s never the predicate adjective in a sentence with linking verbs (like yours). It’s exactly the same in French actually, we say « Il y a beaucoup de différences », instead of « Les différences sont beaucoup ».
I wrote (optional) after “ones” because I’m not sure of whether it is necessary or not, I think your sentence is clearer like that, but It’s up to someone who knows better to confirm that impression.


It would be too easy to say women and men’s behaviour is only determined by purely innate factors. The culture a (wo)man grows up with is also a huge factor that cannot be ignored. By saying “men and women desire different things” you’re treating (wo)men as if they were some kind of homogenous group. Which they are not. (Wo)men are a group that consists of many individuals with different personalities. Therefore, you will find two people of the opposite sex that are more similar to one another than two men. And this premise is what I base my point on; there are boys/girls whose gender is not in accordance with their biological sex, which is why a sex-based education is not always appropriate. For example, I enjoyed playing with dolls as much as I liked using toy guns to play war when i was little. The latter being considered “masculine”, it would inevitably have caused frustration if I had been told to stop playing these types of games just because I’m a girl. In fact, that could have made me wonder if there was something wrong with me for not acting like a girl is supposed to. That’s why we’re saying it’s better to raise your kids neutrally, if your boy wants trucks and Action Men, give them to him. But if he asks for a Baby Born or wants to do ballet, let him have/do that too, regardless of the fact that these are considered feminine toys/activities. It is better to let him do what he wants, unless it goes to the extent where he purposefully rejects everything masculine and wants to be a girl.
Basically, your children should be taught the difference between sex and gender: “One doesn’t have to be a girl (biologically) to express behaviour that is deemed as feminine.”

I should be
You would be
He/she/it would be
We should be
You would be
They would be

It would have to be means " il devrait être " talking about something/ an animal.

It would be means " il serait " talking about something/ an animal too.

« Men and women are also different psychologically that’s why they do not behave similarly »… Maybe i should have to add " exactly " in this sentence. For sure, a man can have a certain behaviour deemed as feminine. But it’s not because of that he behaves like a woman. Your idea is summed up by the abolition gender’s role that means the abolition of differences between men and women.
However, that’s impossible ! there still will be differences ! indeed, wo(men)'s group isn’t homogenous because of a simple reason : Everybody is different even twins.

Further-more, playing with guns is not a boy’s game… Let us say it’s a neutral game.

Cela n’empêche que

I should
You should
(s)he/it should
We should
You should
They should

est une conjugaison tout à fait correcte du mot « should ».

« Should » peut être utilisé aux trois personnes (du sing. & plur.) lors qu’il exprime un conseil/une correction/une obligation dont on cherche à atténuer la connotation autoritaire, comme dans mon cas.
Par exemple:
**

  1. « You should do this » = « tu devrais faire ça »**

D’autres façons de dire ça sont « you have to do this »/« you must do this » = « Tu dois faire ça », mais en disant « should » au lieu de « have to/must », tu arrives à dire que ton interlocuteur doit faire quelque chose, tout en évitant d’avoir l’air trop agressif/autoritaire. En français aussi d’ailleurs, « tu dois » a une connotation plus autoritaire que « tu devrais ». Dans le premier cas tu sous-entends qu’il est de ton devoir de faire ça, dans le deuxième tu ne fais que conseiller/suggérer quelque chose de mieux (faire ça).

**2. « You would do this » = « Tu ferais ça »

  1. « You would have to do this » = « Tu aurais à faire ça » **

Dans ce cas ce n’est pas un conseil que tu donnes, « ça » est quelque chose que tu te verrais dans l’obligation de faire si quelque chose devait se passer (c’est sous condition). Une autre traduction appropriée est donc: « [Si…]Tu serais obligé de faire ça ». Et uniquement dans ce cas-ci, « should » ne peut être utilisé qu’à la première personne (sing. ou plur.) et « would » est utilisé pour le reste.

« Si je commettais un crime, j’irais en prison »
=> « If i committed a crime, i should/would go to prison »

« Si tu le cassais, tu aurais à le réparer »
=> « If you broke it, you would have to repair it. »
[strike]=> « If you broke it, you should have to repair it. »[/strike]

Mais les « should » de la phrase "Though, i think the first bold sentence should be « boys who play […] and « like that » should be « this way », but… » ont la même fonction que le « should » de la phrase nr 1 de mes exemples, ils ne doivent donc pas être changés en « would ». :wink:

(1) You can “behave in a [adj.] way” (= se comporter de façon [insère mot ici]), but you can’t “have a behaviour”.
I’ve said “to express behaviour” in one of my post, but after re-reading myself, I’m starting to wonder if that’s correct too. I’ll look that up.
(2) I’m not sure of what you meant to say here, but I suppose you meant: « Un homme peut avoir un comportement [considéré comme étant] féminin. Mais ça ne veut pas dire qu’il se comporte comme une femme. ». If it’s the case, i think « But that doesn’t mean he behaves like a woman » is a better way to state this. What you actually wrote is: “Mais ce n’est pas pour ça/ à cause de ça qu’il se comporte comme une femme”. By using “because” you’re making it seem like you think the man does indeed behave like a woman and you’re searching for the cause of his behaviour (why he behaves this way), which is, I suppose, not what you meant.


I don’t see how adding “exactly” makes this sentence any better.

If “behaving in a feminine way” does not mean “behaving like a woman”, what does it mean? “Relating to women”/“like women” is the definition of “feminine”.

The abolition of gender roles does not equal the abolition of the differences between men and women. A “gender role” is a type of behaviour that is considered more appropriate for a specific gender (or sex). But why should a certain behaviour be considered more appropriate for a boy than a girl (or the opposite)? Why not just give boys and girls the freedom to do what they like without categorizing their behaviour as feminine/masculine? The simple fact that you agree with me when I say that all women and men are different goes against defending gender roles.

As for you saying playing war isn’t considered a masculine game by most people, I suggest you go to a toy shop and look for guns in the “pink” section. I doubt you will see any of them there (as a girl, I’ve been going there all my life and I have never seen one). Then go to the “blue” section, and there, I can predict, without a doubt this time, that you won’t have any trouble finding them.

      Hmm... Why are there gender roles according to you ? Because of anatomic and psychological differences between men and women ! The fact is that we should have to abolish these differences for abolishing gender roles. There's an indeniable, real link. Indeed " gender roles " are the types of behaviour which are considered more appropriate for a specific sex than for the opposite one. It's also what the gender has to or should do.

      A certain behaviour will be considered as boys/girs' because it's been like that ever since...  :??:  Oh ! I don't know. So let's say it has always been like that. Remember what i said about sexual identification.  :) 

That’s why boys will commonly behave as their father. Moreover, We’ve to consider the " parents role " in a child development. Like you said, children are given to a sex-based education by their parents. I think they have to proceed in the way of giving a good boy’s education to a boy (the same case for a girl). And yet, They’ll never be able to attain their target if the girl or the boy wants the opposite gender’s toys … Yeah ! thinking like that is a bit bold, i know ! But it’s not normal ! :heink:

     Maybe, that's the result of a psychological anomaly. However, i'm not saying that a girl who feels like playing with guns or trucks ( only please ! ) has an anomaly... No ! Further-more a child behaves as a child not as " a boy " or " a girl " ( but parents must do something, mustn't they ? ).

** Hmm… Why are there gender roles according to you ? Because of anatomic and psychological differences between men and women ! The fact is that we should have to abolish these differences for abolishing gender roles. There’s an indeniable, real link. **

So what? The simple fact that these gender roles could be based on innate factors does still not make your statement about how abolishing gender roles is the same as abolishing differences any more true.

Indeed " gender roles " are the types of behaviour which are considered more appropriate for a specific sex than for the opposite one. It’s also what the gender has to or should do.

But, I will repeat, * “why?” ** Why* should something be more appropriate for one sex than the other? I have previously asked you this, and you did not answer because you cannot. It’s that simple. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason why a person should behave in a specific way because of his/her sex. This belief does nothing but make transgendered and androgynous people feel like they’re abnormal (in a bad way).

    ** A certain behaviour will be considered as boys/girs' because it's been like that ever since...     Oh ! I don't know. So let's say it has always been like that. Remember what i said about sexual identification.    **

The fact that a type of behavior is more prevalent among girls/boys should * not* make it inappropriate for the opposite sex to behave this same way.

**That’s why boys will commonly behave as their father. Moreover, We’ve to consider the " parents role " in a child development. Like you said, children are given to a sex-based education by their parents. I think they have to proceed in the way of giving a good boy’s education to a boy (the same case for a girl). And yet, They’ll never be able to attain their target if the girl or the boy wants the opposite gender’s toys … Yeah ! thinking like that is a bit bold, i know ! But it’s not normal ! **

You formulate your arguments in a way that makes it quite hard to understand where you stand on the subject.
By “proceed in the way of giving a ** boy’s education** to a boy”, did you mean boys should or should not be raised in a sexist way?

If you believe they should, I repeat, that would mean neglecting individual differences, which are the reason why I keep saying there’s no point in giving your children a sex-based education.
If it’s the second interpretation, there’s nothing to debate about anymore then.

   ** Maybe, that's the result of a psychological anomaly. However, i'm not saying that a girl who feels like playing with guns or trucks ( only please ! ) has an anomaly... No ! Further-more a child behaves as a child not as " a boy " or " a girl " ( but parents must do something, mustn't they ? ).**

The underlined part is my entire point. If a child behaves in a way that is not in accordance with its ascribed gender , while being completely aware of which sex it belongs to, there’s nothing wrong with it, so we’d better let kids do what they like instead of pushing them into a specific direction because of the organ (s)he has between his/her legs.

Somewhere-over-the-rainbow… Tu as vu ? je m’améliore en anglais… Je n’ai pas fait de faute apparemment. :slight_smile:

Oui, c’est vrai, je n’en ai vu aucune en tout cas. Bravo :wink:

I talked about " differences between men an women ", it is just above. :ange:

I think like you " we should abolish gender roles ", but i know that we shall never be able to abolish gender roles because of many factors i talked about.

I’m over the moon… :ange:

I’m really bemused. I repeat what i said, a child does not behave as a " a boy " or " a girl " but merely as a " child ". That’s why he cannot be aware of which gender he belongs. That’s the problem, do you see ? Parents haven’t to neglect the gender of their children for educating them. Moreover, this education has to be based on something, all the more so since that can be a femal genital organ or a male one. Anyway, i distinguish a gender difference there. So parents must not << push>> like you said the child, they must just help him to discover his/her sex. What’s more, child-toys aren’t interative and play ones for nothing. :ange: Otherwise, when does begin the parents’ role ? :slight_smile:

P.S : We already allocate guns, trucks, cars ( … ) to boys and dolls, doll’s tea parties (…) to girls, it’s like that, not differently ! :slight_smile:

Merci…:slight_smile:

You’re welcome =)

But then I said that this does not justify the existence of gender roles as there are a lot of individual differences among people of the same sex. There is no reason why a girl should have to behave “like this” and a boy “like that” (even though she is more likely to behave “like this” because of innate factors).

Can you rephrase the sentence in red, please? I suppose you meant “interactive”, so right now, it says : “Les jouets pour enfants ne sont pas interactifs et joue ceux pour rien». I can’t correct it as i have no idea of what you were trying to say.


When I asked my three-year-old niece whether she’s a boy or girl, she was entirely aware of what she was. Many toddlers do already know what toys, activities and colors are “for girls” or “for boys” and they are likely to behave accordingly. Which means: “I have the body of a girl, so I have to act like a girl”.

Here’s a video to show you how much kids are aware of their sex and their gender.
And here’s another one about a doctor explaining how gender roles influence children’s behavior.

So basically, when you give your children a sexist education (= raising/treating your kids differently depending on their sex) you are automatically influencing or pushing them toward a specific direction, while this isn’t something that is necessary for them to know which sex they belong to (=discover their own sex, like you said).

And just to make things clear, when I’m talking about the child’s sex, I’m talking about whether (s)he’s biologically female or male. When I talk about the child’s gender, I mean the gender role (s)he tries to conform to. The difference between “gender” and “sex” is clearer in French, but these words tend to be used interchangeably in English, so I’m clarifying this to avoid confusion.

A play thing means " une chose ludique ".

What a pity ! There’s a misunderstanding ! Even so there should not be a lack of understanding… It’s not actually difficult : Gender roles exist because of differences between men and women. That’s can be justified by a << gene of identification >> if we want only to tackle the question of psychological differences. I mean a child who doesn’t know his sex he belongs to, need the help of his/her parents. What is more appreciable than it is ? You must know that a boy will become a man and a girl a woman with different responsabilities. Sometimes, we allocate violent games to the << violent gender >> and less violent ones to the << less violent sex >>… Why boys should be the << violent gender >> ? The answer is our current societies’.
And then, i want to underline something which is important. We talk about general cases, ok ? Otherwise it’s like when someone says that a person has one head, one mouth, two arms and feet… Is it correct ? Of couse it is ! But another would be allowed to say that a person can have Two mouths, one arm and one leg… But isn’t it a real person ? Certainly it is ! :ange:

I literally said : << Les jouets pour enfants ne sont pas interactifs et ludiques pour rien >>.

Hmm don’t make me laugh at you, please ! :smiley:
Like i said, in this story, parents have to play their part. I do not think a toddler will be able to say " mom " and/or " dad " if (s)he never heard these words. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hmm, i’m going to see… But i’ve a already my point of view about this subject. Anyway, i am not the kind of persons who believe in everything without a learned, discernment-minded personality.

Hmm, sorry for contradicting you… It’s necessary but not compulsory (= obligatory) at all. Anyway it is better to say nothing instead of saying that the boy is a girl and buying girl-toys for him.It’s the least he could do… It’s similar to the name knowledge all the more so since, that is linked to other stuff.

As for that, yeah i know ! Moreover, i think i haven’t done a confusion at all ! In any case, it’s good that you availed yourself of this message to clear this words’ use. :slight_smile:

At last, it would be difficult for parents to breed a child ( yep a toddler ! Even one ! ) without considering his/her sex ( since that will irreparably have afterwards, odd behavioral effects ).

We still seem to be running around in circles here. They are the reasons why gender roles exist, yes, but how do general psychological differences between women and men (as groups), explain the belief that gender roles can’t be abolished?

It is in our nature to make broad generalizations about a group of persons who share similar traits, and since significant behavioural differences (which are the product of nature, not nurture) will automatically be found between a group of females and a group of males, we can indeed conclude that sex-based stereotypes / expectations will always exist unless we “abolish” inborn differences between men and women (which is impossible). That I agree with.

But the tendency we have of judging whether it is acceptable/appropriate for a person to exhibit a type of behaviour on his/her sex (= gender roles) is what i want an end to be put to and it is something we can put an end to without necessarily changing the innate factors that are responsible for the existence of the gender norms we base our judgment on, contrary to what you were saying.

It’s more than obvious that boys/girls have to be told by their parents they’ll grow up to be men/women, but my point is that sexism isn’t needed for them to know that.

It is not sexist to tell your daughter (1)“your body is different from that of a boy, so you are a girl and when you will grow up you will become a woman”. This is a simple fact.
It is however sexist to tell her (2)“you don’t have the body of a boy, so you are female and you will grow up to be a woman. And being a woman means being pretty all the time, liking pink, caring for the kids and doing the domestic chores. So I will buy you Bradz dolls, a mini-kitchen and a Baby Born to make you aware of how you have to behave in order to be a girl. The first sentence of the statement (2) would have been enough for her to know she is female, all the rest in italics was unnecessary sexist rambling by which you’re teaching her the wrong definition of “a girl”. See? In statement (1) you’re purely talking about what sex she is (« helping her discover her sex »). In statement (2) you are not only telling her what sex she is, you are also telling her what gender she should be based on her sex and thus pushing her into a specific direction that’s based on her sex. Hence me saying that, yes, we should help our kids discover their sex, but the choice should be up to them when it comes to their gender.

In this case, I believe it should be changed into “there’s a reason why child toys are interactive and ludic”
“For nothing” is mostly used in cases where you do something and don’t receive anything in return, but not when you’re talking about the reason for being of something.
I’m not very sure of the word “ludic” as a predicate adjective, though…

Huh? I didn’t mean to say that toddlers would magically just know everything, again parents have to tell them what they are. This was in response to you saying children aren’t aware of their ascribed gender and therefore can’t behave accordingly (hence the use of videos as counterarguments).

How can it be necessary but not obligatory? A thing is “necessary” when you can’t achieve what you want without it, so It’s either both or none.

I never ever said it was okay to tell boys they are girls, nor did I ever state kids should be raised as the opposite gender, I’m saying that we shouldn’t base our choice of the toys we buy them on their sex, nor should we categorize toys as “(exclusively) feminine” or “(exclusively) masculine”. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying your son toys that are categorized as feminine (or “girl toys”). Like I said, toys can be categorized as (exclusively) feminine, but they cannot be feminine as they are played with by both sexes (not equally, but they are regardless).
Toys aren’t just all about having fun, children learn a lot by playing with them and therefore, if I have a son in the future, I will buy him dolls and cars so that he’ll be more likely to develop both his nurturing/parenting skills and his spatial skills. If he ends up gravitating more toward the cars, I will buy him more cars, but that’s because that’s what he’d like, not because he happens to be a boy.

Uhh, the people I know who’ve had non-sexist educations turned out just fine. How can this type of education be responsible for negative behavioural effects? The parents in this link are just letting their kids be, that’s exactly the type of education i’m talking about and I seriously do not see what harm could possibly result from this.