No one to blame

Hm. James, I don’t think it’s awful advice, but the way you’ve phrased it is a bit callous, not to mention sexist. If it’s supposed to be funny, well… there’s a place for humor in the world, but I’m pretty sure that a suicide page is not that place.

I kind of agree with it, though. If you do have something you really want to do once you get to that other country, perhaps completing your education will make you marketable enough to pursue your real dreams. And if you don’t have something you want to do, completing your education may make you marketable enough to get the time and money you need to develop dreams. Either way, sticking to it has its advantages. If it’s just absolute murder to continue studying what you’re studying, then I’m not sure I can help you. Try and hang in there.

James,

I agreed with your advice. Dreams are incredibly important, and as you said, the light of one may sustain the writer through his difficult period. I didn’t call you sexist; I said that the way you phrased your advice came off as sexist. However different men and woman may be, everybody needs to feel fulfilled, and if the writer can complete his or her education he may develop the means to become more fulfilled, or discover that the completion of it is fulfilling in itself.

James,

Um… okay. Good? I don’t quite see your point. If you want to explain it further, feel free to IM me through AIM at GinsuButterfly, which goes for anybody here.

James,

I think that in most if not all cultures things become more bearable when you have something to fight for, some dream to fulfill. That’s certainly the case where I’m from. And again, I think that holds true whether you’re a man, woman, straight, or gay. For example, you say that in your “world” gays are sent to a dark room when visitors arrive. In that case, doesn’t that gay person need more than ever to hold onto some dream to make their days more bearable? Perhaps the dream of leaving for somewhere less constrictive?

I also think that the lack of a dream or a goal is something that can make someone turn to suicide. That’s part of the reason I’m on this site.

Also, let’s remember that the writer of the message is himself ostensibly a “foreigner” (he’s training to come to another country), so we have to consider what advice is best considering his culture.

Which brings me to my last point: we’ve kind of derailed the writer’s thread. I like debating with you, but if you want to continue we should probably do it elsewhere. Feel free to IM me at the name above or e-mail me at rickyjey13@yahoo.com.

James,

You’re right; it is hard to know how to advise someone if you don’t know what culture they’re from. Let’s assume, though, for argument’s sake, that the writer is a man from a place similar to the place you live, where men and woman are on less-than-equal terms, and is trying to go to a county where men and woman are on more of a level playing field (I’M NOT SAYING this is the case, just that we assume it is for the sake of argument). In that case you would advise him that he, as a man, should complete his education, travel to that other country, and pursue his real dream.

But if the writer, for the sake of argument, were a woman, why should she do any different? If she completes her education, she can come to a country in which, unlike in her (hypothetical) home country, men and women are treated more equally. In this place, she would have equal footing with a man to pursue her real dream, whatever that may be, while if she “abandons it and runs to her parents” she might be stuck in a country where she can never fulfill that dream.

This will probably be my last post of the night as I need to get to bed (I don’t know where you live but here it’s late). I’ve enjoyed talking to you. Later.

James,

It is amazing how my occasional suicidal feelings evaporate whenever I find something interesting and/or worthwhile to do, like debating you, for instance. I’m not sure I agree, however, that once gone the cloud can never come back.

In your third paragraph, I’m not sure what you mean by either “sensible” or “comprehension.” Do you mean that in your society, woman are treated more leniently when they “fail in their course in life” and men are treated more harshly when they do the same thing because woman are more biologically inclined to fail that course and men are more biologically inclined to succeed? If so, I disagree. On a related note, I also disagree that gender norms are not a “social construction” and will address that point first.

Before I begin, know that I’m not a professional historian or sociologist but that I think this theory explains the different ways society treats men and woman at least as well as a biological explanation. Okay: it seems to me that woman are biologically different from men in two pertinent ways (there are other differences, to be sure, but these are the two I think have an effect on this subject): they are physically smaller and weaker then men, and they can bear children whereas men cannot. These two differences are responsible for the differing treatments of men and women in society. In antiquity straight through the last century, the most important jobs on Earth were labor intensive; hunting, farming, factory work. These were the jobs that sustained life and generated income. Men, being generally physically bigger and stronger than women, normally held these jobs, while woman took up jobs more appropriate to their physical stature, usually jobs around the home. In addition, pregnancy and child-rearing often kept women out of the workplace and at home. The end result of these differences is that men, holding the jobs that supported the family, developed a mentality that they as a gender were the more willful and expected to succeed lest their family suffer, while woman, holding jobs that depended on the continued employment of men and kept from seeking other jobs by their smaller stature and child-rearing responsibilities, developed a mentality that they as a gender were meeker and that even if they failed at something, men would support them.

Fast-forward to today. What I’m about to say applies purely to developed countries (like, we assume, the one the writer is going to travel to). Nowadays, labor-intensive jobs are less important as, more and more often, machines take over that work. Succeeding nowadays often means doing well in the realms of science, business, law, or other mentally-focused professions. Apart from those, there is nowadays a bevy of retail and clerical work that does not bar women based on their physical prowess. The purely physical weakness of women as compared to men no longer bars woman from, at the least, seeking these jobs out. In addition, modern technology has greatly reduced (though not by any stretch of the imagination eliminated) the former difficulties of pregnancy and child-rearing. Women very rarely die in childbirth anymore, and modern medicine allows them to effectively live their lives (and hold their jobs) immediately before and immediately after the actual birth. The end result of these developments is that women CAN be on an equal playing field with men where before, because of their biological differences, that really wasn’t possible. However, because of the centuries-long period during which women were kept out of “significant” jobs and the socially constructed gender norms that resulted (outlined above), there is still an assumption that women should not compete for the same jobs as men as they are, as you say, “not biologically prepared for it.” I posit that this perceived biological difference is actually a social construct created by the process outlined in the former paragraph and this one. I finish this section by reminding you that everything I’ve said in this paragraph applies only to developed countries.

Modern trends support this conclusion. There are more female doctors, lawyers, scientists, and CEOs than there have ever been. The last two United States Secretaries of State have been women, and one of those women was a serious contender for President of the United States in the last American Presidential election. I’m currently in an intense graduate program, and half my class consists of women who want and are able to succeed as much as I do.

I’m an American male, by the way, if you couldn’t tell. 😉

I don’t know exactly how women behave in your country and you don’t know exactly how they behave in mine, but if you saw some of the women in my class I think you’d agree that women at least have the CAPACITY to compete successfully with men. Also of note is that in my country, I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule as to what a family will do with a child, male or female, who doesn’t succeed in their course in life. It really depends on the family. Some would take back in a son or a daughter who failed. Some would be ashamed of either. I think the general situation is still, as it is in your country, that a family would be harsher with a male who didn’t succeed than with a female, but there really is a range to it, and I think that as society develops further along the path I outlined above that it will become entirely family-specific.

You make the argument that male and female mammals in the wild behave as male and female humans should behave. I think this is a tenuous argument; however animals may behave, animals aren’t human beings. Also remember that animals can never move beyond the state of affairs that humans were in before technology and society leveled the playing field, which I argue is the big difference that makes human males and females more equal where male and female giraffes, for instance, cannot be. Finally, there are counter-examples to your argument. Female lions, for example, do all the hunting for the family while the male just lies there.

It would be fun to tackle your “cooperation not competition” argument, but I think I’ve written more than enough already. In conclusion, women are as capable as men at succeeding in the world, and their self-worth will be as validated as any man’s when they achieve their dreams.