|
On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods:
I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast  Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines?
You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol.
|
On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote:
You are such an idiot.
That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic?
|
On November 19 2011 13:09 TruthIsCold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods:
I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol.
TL's mods are better than that, lol, they don't ban you just because they disagree.
Case in point: Jibba above. He evidently disagrees with my point of view and could have probably froze me easily.
But he didn't; he recognizes my opinion even though, as he says, I'm an idiot.
|
On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic?
There are mandatory high school and college courses across the country dedicated to teaching people how to argue against you in this subject. You will not win, just give up now.
|
On November 19 2011 13:12 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:09 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods:
I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol. TL's mods are better than that, lol, they don't ban you just because they disagree. Case in point: Jibba above. He evidently disagrees with my point of view and could have probably froze me easily. But he didn't; he recognizes my opinion even though, as he says, I'm an idiot.
Jibba's not the only mod on this forum, friend. Some mods are much more tolerant than others. Of course I'm not back seat moderating here, I'm just giving you a friendly warning to be careful.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic?
How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century?
Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative.
How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything.
|
Wow... I definitely laughed quite a bit after reading:
People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female.
Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history.
The post was in bad taste. But as a source of amusement, forgivable. It's like you took the most absurd possible argument and then expected it to be debated with complete seriousness.
Human beings are not equal. Those that argue that they are wage war against bravery, intellect, beauty, well-constitutedness, strength, and individuality. But this inequality is not caused by ethnicity or sex or even in many cases genetics, but always by individuals.
|
On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote:
You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything.
Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point.
I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place?
My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war.
It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math).
What's unreasonable about that?
To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy.
A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc.
A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect.
B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault.
B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools.
This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate?
C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures.
C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:
intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
Oh boy, I tried to warn him... He's pushing his luck.
|
On November 19 2011 13:17 shinosai wrote:The post was in bad taste. But as a source of amusement, forgivable.
Given that he lives in the US, I don't think it's particularly forgivable. The guy's basically an imbecile... I'm not a big fan of those ad hominem attacks but when people just spew garbage like that, it's all I've got.
Argument: Women have historically accomplished less than men have.
-> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently.
Counter argument:
1- Men do the unpleasant stuff
a) Pay for dates (We do this for mating purposes, that's because we want them to like us - so that we don't rape them)
b) They get half the stuff in divorce (That's new given that they used to be treated like animals, stupid point)
2- Why do we go to war? (Oops, he realized that that argument didn't work so he just said something else that was also dumb)
(Later): "Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history." [Comment: Now that's not very science'y]
-> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. (He didn't make a single good point to discredit the argument that women haven't been accomplishing as much because of the patriarchy!!!).
Basically:
1- Women have historically accomplished less than men have.
2- True, but that doesn't mean they're not as smart. They simply didn't have access to the means men had.
3- No, women have historically accomplished less than men.
Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus).
Funny enough, there's no such evidence, unless you're talking about various blogs.
As a fun addition, Einstein's brain was smaller than average... and smaller than the average... woman brain... Oh golly.
Edit:
This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war.
You realize that this question you're asking is like: answer 2+2 but you can't say 4!
Men go to war because they're stronger and therefore more able, that's a large part of the reason. This is getting less and less true because we have weapons and technology now, but for instance in WW1 it was just men on the battlefield - that's because of social norms - men have always handled the whole thing, which makes sense seeing how you used to swing a heavy sword around and stuff.
This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
Yeah... AT FIRST, when the HUMAN RACE APPEARED on Earth, we started looking into the discrepancies between the average m... Dear God you're a nutter -_-
I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place?
My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war.
Your answer is bad and why do you think "your answer" has any weight? If you knew anything about how society worked (and you obviously don't) you'd understand that there wasn't necessarily any kind of rationality behind it. Women were considered inferior (it was a patriarchy, you see...) and so they didn't have access to those things simply because those were the norms. Originally obviously education didn't even exist, and when it "came up", women didn't have access to it as they were considered inferior (due to the patriarchy).
There wasn't this big decision where men and women sat down and decided that women should cook and wash dishes. Men decided to keep women out - it might have made sense at the time, women were "stupid" because that's how it was. In this world, some cultures encourage potentially very smart people to be complete idiots because education is seen as bad. Those people are not necessarily less able...
Anyway I don't even care that much about this issue, but dude you make stuff up (you really do) and you're so confident about your garbage that you'll convince some feeble minds... Sigh.
|
Given that he lives in the US, I don't think it's particularly forgivable. The guy's basically an imbecile..
Well, that just makes it even more forgivable. We have an awful lot of morons here in the states, and we can't get mad at them for their genetic deficiency in intelligence.
+ Show Spoiler +authors note: high amounts of sarcasm may be found in this post
|
On November 19 2011 03:06 AxUU wrote:
Well, it's true that men control some areas, but seriously, isn't it also sexism, if a job is given to a woman instead of a man, just to add so called "equality" between genders, it's just ridiculous. I've heard of people (through my friends) losing their jobs because the company wanted to hire women instead in order to not look sexist in the eyes of their customers.
While I don't agree with firing someone is performing well at their work just for the sake of hiring someone of the other gender (or whatever group), I think there is a case to be made for hiring people from specific groups in the name of homogenization;
Suppose we have two groups of people, group A and group B, and one job. Let's make the assumption that to each person we can assign some metric of ability, say qualification, at performing this job (just so we can say person 1 should get the job over person 2). This is potentially variable (eg, education, practice could improve it), but well defined at any given time, so we can compare job applicants. We can also allow for another metric which I'll call natural ability or talent that is not variable. For example, if we consider a job that requires excessive heavy lifting, with group A = men, group B = women, one might give a natural ability advantage to men for physiological reasons. I do not want to consider this case; instead let's make the assumption that the distribution of natural ability over the members of group A and group B is close to the same.
Now, suppose group A is, for whatever reason, typically (traditionally, stereotypically, w/e) seen as better at this job than group B. Because of this, it is likely that more people from group A will consider this a worthwhile job to pursue. Assuming this and that people actually want this job, people from group A will have an edge in qualification; they will tend to train more for a job they believe they will be better at, whereas people from group B will likely be significantly less enticed by this job and will spend less time preparing themselves for it; ie they will have lower qualification values. This happens due to societal views despite the equality of talent (may be taken as an assumption, though any reason for one group having higher qualification can really substitute with appropriate modification; eg access to education).
With this skew, it's likely that naively any hiring company would choose applicants from group A over those from group B more frequently. The problem with this is that, in the long term, companies would not be choosing the best possible candidates for the job in terms of natural ability; even if a person from group B has less qualification (and even if ultimately they end up being worse at the job than the leading candidate from group A would have been), it benefits the company in the future to encourage members of group B to apply for their job as they will have a larger talent pool to draw from (eg can take top 5% overall talent-wise as opposed to top 10% of group A) and thus overall have higher quality workers. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the company's need to have quality employees to survive, but if longevity is not an issue, then this is not really a factor.
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote:
You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post
I feel like my eyes are being opened, thanks man.
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote:
You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post
Do yourself a favour and read this:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/11/03/000334955_20101103062028/Rendered/PDF/576270WDR0SecM1e0only1910BOX353773B.pdf
This article touches on the importance of improving gender equality, but focuses on how this has been accomplished rather than why it's important. It's the best thing I could find before going to bed, but the world bank database should have plenty more if you're still not convinced.
One important thing I think everyone should read is on page iv under the heading of "Box 2 Equality of what? Opportunities, outcomes and women’s welfare"
I think this is gist of the argument here. Some economists think that each person should be afforded equal opportunity and some think that each gender should have equal outcome. The main difference is the approach. The first option believes that men and women should be treated identically in terms of rights and education. The second camp believes that the genders will only be considered equal when their lifetime wealth is equal.
|
On November 19 2011 14:28 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote:
You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post Do yourself a favour and read this: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/11/03/000334955_20101103062028/Rendered/PDF/576270WDR0SecM1e0only1910BOX353773B.pdfThis article touches on the importance of improving gender equality, but focuses on how this has been accomplished rather than why it's important. It's the best thing I could find before going to bed, but the world bank database should have plenty more if you're still not convinced. One important thing I think everyone should read is on page iv under the heading of "Box 2 Equality of what? Opportunities, outcomes and women’s welfare" I think this is gist of the argument here. Some economists think that each person should be afforded equal opportunity and some think that each gender should have equal outcome. The main difference is the approach. The first option believes that men and women should be treated identically in terms of rights and education. The second camp believes that the genders will only be considered equal when their lifetime wealth is equal.
I'm not sure what relevance this has...I'm not arguing against gender equality at all. Neither, were I arguing against equal pay, would I take the ridiculously pedantic position that implementation is implausible. Hence, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.
|
On November 19 2011 11:18 Jibba wrote:
Fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100 million miles traveled, by driver age and gender, April 2001–March 2002:
Male
Age 16-19
Crash Involvements: 4,257
Miles: 46,427,394,010
Rate: 9.2
Female
Age 16-19
Crash Involvements: 1,852
Miles: 35,264,476,105
Rate: 5.3
Male
Age 20-29
Crash Involvements: 8,949
Miles: 225,999,581,860
Rate: 4.0
Female
Age 20-29
Crash Involvements: 3,172
Miles: 156,283,683,955
Rate: 2.0
From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Are you arguing its ok for insurance companies to age/gender discriminate but its not ok for anyone else? Just because money is involved should not give insurance companies the right to discriminate. Also I mean I'm sure these stats are somewhat accurate but that is a small sample size, and I wouldn't ever trust anything paid for and researched by an insurance company. Those statistics are bloated, It clearly states there are more men driving more often, so they are obviously more likely to get into accidents isn't that obvious? Say I owned a restaurant, and overtime I noticed male waiters are more likely not to report all their tips, and or steal from the business, should I be aloud to not hire men or vice versa? When the same business that gets to determine who pays more, is doing the research it seems that would be the definition of hypocrisy.
( This subject is a little touchy for me because 2 years ago I was crashed into by a lady high on crack, literally, a few days out of rehab, it was a saturday and she claimed to be coming from church. She blew through a stop sign and 3 lanes of traffic to t-bone me at almost 45 miles an hour, completely destroying my car and leaving my friend with some pain for months. She went to jail, but probably belongs there, I however was out a car, my only means of transportation at the time. However she had no insurance, and my broke college student ass didn't have the "right kind" of insurance so I received 0$ for the damages to my car. A car worth maybe 5000-6000 dollars at the time, but something I had worked years for to be able to afford. My options were to, deal with it, or sue a crack head that will be forever in jail and end up paying legal bills and never seeing a penny from this person. 2 months later my insurance premiums rose ~25%/yr even though the insurance company didn't pay me a dime. I ended up losing my car obviously and being forced now to drive around without insurance in a 800$ piece of shit nissan, as my insurance costs are more than the value of my car I really cant afford it. So If I have trouble respecting anything an insurance company has to say/do that is why.)
edit: To the OP, while this advertisement you saw was in poor taste and very sexist and borderline insane. Your post was a little shortsighted as you are only looking at the situation from one perspective. Women have been discriminated against for millennia, While this doesn't give them the right to make the same mistakes that were made against them in the past. 1 or 2 of them lashing out once in a while is to be expected. You should try just laughing about the stupidity of the person rather than getting mad at an entire group of people.
last edit: You people arguing that women shouldn't be treated fairly because of "what they have accomplished over the last 10,000 years" are insane and disgusting, enjoy being foreveralone and out of your mind.
|
Please note that whenever I make a comment analogous to "men > women" at WHATEVER it is, that it is a postulation, not something I'm saying is a FACT. I'm not calling women dumb at all here.
On November 19 2011 13:31 Djzapz wrote:
Argument: Women have historically accomplished less than men have.
-> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently.
Counter argument:
1- Men do the unpleasant stuff
a) Pay for dates (We do this for mating purposes, that's because we want them to like us - so that we don't rape them)
b) They get half the stuff in divorce (That's new given that they used to be treated like animals, stupid point)
2- Why do we go to war? (Oops, he realized that that argument didn't work so he just said something else that was also dumb)
(Later): "Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history." [Comment: Now that's not very science'y]
-> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. (He didn't make a single good point to discredit the argument that women haven't been accomplishing as much because of the patriarchy!!!).
1. A and B, in case you didn't catch my drift, were humorous. I was not actually arguing this, but of course you were starting from the assumption that I am an imbecile because my opinion is not politically correct.
2. Not science-ey? Why not? It has more text subjects, accounts for every possible variable, and is not in any way influenced by the observer. It is indeed much more "science'y" than any structured, unrealistic lab test today.
Of course, it doesn't utilize control groups or whatever you want, but it provides very strong, tangible conclusions, as opposed to much of what you call science.
Also, my example about war, which you called dumb, was never refuted. Why exactly was it dumb? Are you just calling it dumb because it's my argument? I thought you "weren't a fan of those ad hominem attacks".
The war example demonstrates undeniably that MEN, upon realizing that MEN were better suited, as you admitted (and ignored my preempt), to war. This completely disproves the stance that men, because they were stronger, made women do any undesirable task.
Think about it. ANY culture in the world used men as warriors, and almost all of these cultures also had men as scholars, etc.
I'll quote you, "Men go to war because they're stronger and therefore more able, that's a large part of the reason. This is getting less and less true because we have weapons and technology now, but for instance in WW1 it was just men on the battlefield - that's because of social norms - men have always handled the whole thing, which makes sense seeing how you used to swing a heavy sword around and stuff."
This, in case you didn't yet realize it, is EXACTLY my point. Men go to war because they're better at it than women. Similarly, men do math, science, etc. because they're better at it than women.
It's not because we like the things we do - who likes war? Men aren't doing the fun stuff; they're doing what they're GOOD at. The reason it is a "social norm" (you) for men to go to war is the same reason it is a social norm for men to go to school. We're better. <- This is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. Your arguments "against" war fall flat on their faces, however. You admit exactly what I said was true.
Basically:
1- Women have historically accomplished less than men have.
2- True, but that doesn't mean they're not as smart. They simply didn't have access to the means men had.
3- No, women have historically accomplished less than men.
You fail to understand the specificity of the logic here. Africa's current state (which isn't really deniable apart from a few select nations) is a result of the power vacuum that arose as European colonialism disintegrated post WWI and II. But the reason they were taken over in the first place (this is from my textbook, not me) is because they were fighting off muskets with spears. They traded slaves from other tribes to the Europeans; their ancestral internal conflicts tore them apart to the point where some even turned against the other tribes. They lacked military technology and union. THAT is the root, root cause of the problem.
In the same way, it became, as society developed, gradually apparent that the female was marvelously adept at child rearing and organizational activities, while the male was good at hunting. Child rearing, cooking, and other such activities, you see, are largely repetitive. The leadership roles were filled by men, and gradually, it was accepted that women were less acclimated to certain activities. One was war, which the men agreed to take care of.
What you refuse to see here is that if society was truly patriarchal - if men controlled absolutely everything and did everything to control and subjugate women, then women would go to war.
This doesn't make sense! Women aren't good soldiers; they are shorter, less muscle tone, etc.
WHY then (as you've admitted the above) is it so impossible to admit that they were less demonstrative of intellect as well?
Well, it leads us to the next point.
Funny enough, there's no such evidence, unless you're talking about various blogs.
As a fun addition, Einstein's brain was smaller than average... and smaller than the average... woman brain... Oh golly.
Once again, you completely misconstrue the argument.
http://www.teleodynamics.com/wp-content/PDF/Humanbraindifferences.pdf
What I'm saying is not that men have bigger brains than women and are therefore smarter. Stop putting words in my mouth.
What I'm saying IS that physical aspects of the brain (NOT just size; composition, connectivity, synapse coordination) are relevant towards intellect.
Since everyone (including you - swords) admits that women are weaker (a physical characteristic) than men, why not that women are less intellectually developed (a physical characteristic) in certain areas than men?
You realize that this question you're asking is like: answer 2+2 but you can't say 4!
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
Of course, you absolutely fail to "explain a reason other than men = stronger..."; you literally say, "men are stronger, and that's why". Sigh.
This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
Yeah... AT FIRST, when the HUMAN RACE APPEARED on Earth, we started looking into the discrepancies between the average m... Dear God you're a nutter -_-
I'm a nutter? The alternative is that we one day, as an entire human race, sat down as a species and decided that, "from now on, women are doing x, y and z, and men are doing a, b, and c.
THAT seems a bit weirder, if you ask me. Of course, I'm an imbecile, right?
Your answer is bad and why do you think "your answer" has any weight? If you knew anything about how society worked (and you obviously don't) you'd understand that there wasn't necessarily any kind of rationality behind it. Women were considered inferior (it was a patriarchy, you see...) and so they didn't have access to those things simply because those were the norms. Originally obviously education didn't even exist, and when it "came up", women didn't have access to it as they were considered inferior (due to the patriarchy).
I do debate, and "your answer is bad" is possibly the worst way I've ever seen someone handle an argument.
Why wasn't there rationality behind it? You yourself explained the rationality of men going to war. Why not men going to school?
Women were considered inferior, yes, particularly because the necessary tasks (like hunting, developing weapons and tools) were done by the men.
We hunted, obviously, because we were stronger. We developed the tools, intuitively, because we actually knew what we needed.
Originally education didn't exist? What do you call instruction in how to hunt, how to track? I assume that in your middle school you were taught that each generation of cavemen independently discovered fire?
But of course, it's ME who doesn't know anything about society. lol. Do your teachers say that physics isn't part of education? Because that's what spear throwing was. Sure, it wasn't write shit down education, but it was education nonetheless. And the girls at home were also learning about how to sow and cook. "Oh this is where the pat. society started!!!" Yes. It is. It started as women didn't hunt and, as they didn't therefore know what men needed on hunts and what tools/weapons needed to be improved, probably didn't improve/invent tools either.
Also, there are probably more ad hominem attacks in these two sentences than there are in my entire post...
There wasn't this big decision where men and women sat down and decided that women should cook and wash dishes. Men decided to keep women out - it might have made sense at the time, women were "stupid" because that's how it was. In this world, some cultures encourage potentially very smart people to be complete idiots because education is seen as bad. Those people are not necessarily less able...
Anyway I don't even care that much about this issue, but dude you make stuff up (you really do) and you're so confident about your garbage that you'll convince some feeble minds... Sigh.
There wasn't this big decision...exactly what I argued before. You called me a nutter for doing so. Hmm...
It was a gradual recognition.
Now once again (as I predicted in my very first post) you say, "Men decided to keep women out".
WHY, then, do men go to war? We can make women do anything we want, right? Your explanation doesn't match the facts.
"It's because men were better at wa-" so why not better at math? You have NEVER explained this properly.
"Dude you make stuff up"...You have accused me of making up one thing this entire keyboard battle, which regarded the physical characteristics of brains. I provided you a scholarly article supporting my point (which was that intellect is a physical characteristic). What else did I 'make up'?
I'm confident about my garbage? Did you notice that my first post itself predicted and answered every argument that you've made (Save for brain size...i didn't expect an argument to be misconstrued THAT badly)?
Please notice that I did not swear. I did not insult my opponent directly (as he did me, btw). I did not flame him. I provided evidence for everything I said, whether historical or analytic.
I have done nothing against the TL guidelines. I happen to have a radical opinion, but that is "encouraged" on this forum, right? I am not trolling, and considering the number of people who have responded with a "You're an imbecile/idiot" (without any warrant, of course) simply because they disagreed, I can't possibly see myself as the villain here.
|
On November 19 2011 18:04 TheGiftedApe wrote:
edit: To the OP, while this advertisement you saw was in poor taste and very sexist and borderline insane. Your post was a little shortsighted as you are only looking at the situation from one perspective. Women have been discriminated against for millennia, While this doesn't give them the right to make the same mistakes that were made against them in the past. 1 or 2 of them lashing out once in a while is to be expected. You should try just laughing about the stupidity of the person rather than getting mad at an entire group of people.
Yeahyeah, I know it probably was uncalled for, but i was kindof mad yesterday. And I did say at the beginning that it was going to be a rant, which = I'm mad = I'm not rational = Letting off steam + My inability to express my opinions properly, which often leads to hating/flaming bad ratings.
I can however say I regret making this post, it seems like it's getting out of hand here. Would have been fun to abuse my "Blog Mod" rights and ban everyone from posting until they forget about this ^^
edit
Can't ban Hot_Bid, Jibba or Chill? I think I knew I couldn't do that anyway...
|
On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:
Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche.
With all due respect, you should really stick to talking about things you have a clue about. Particularly, your grasp on ancient history is, uh, loose.
In Menexenus, Socrates' interlocutor is a woman by the name of Aspasia. In Apology, Socrates claims that he intends to question women in the underworld after death, because he can't do it in Athens (41C). The only ancient school for which we have no evidence for the admission of women is Aristotle's. It's a little troubling that men that died ~2300 years ago were aware that they lived in a patriarchy with intelligent women that would be able to contribute if they were allowed, and you don't.
PS. Simon de Beauvoir was a jillion times more interesting than Sartre.
Edit: Also, in recent philosophy, some of the biggest superstars are women. Many of them are the first generation to have really had the right to be academics; Nussbaum, for example, wasn't allowed in the library at Harvard when she was starting her PhD because she was a woman. It would seem that once we allow women to do things, they're actually pretty good at them...
|
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fq7gJdqabc0/Tlcc5bWy8ZI/AAAAAAAAAXk/vIk9E_nVKbg/s1600/if_i_say_i_m_a_feminist.jpg)
Wowowow is this thread full of a lot of shit.
Regarding false rape accusations and how womens can just make up shit and ruin a man's life forever. The FBI estimates that roughly 8% of reported rape accusations are false. This number includes cases that were thrown out because the accuser wasn't a "proper victim", aka, she didn't fight back hard enough, was too drunk to resist, and/or she knew or was dating the accused and so obviously it wasn't rape. Other government and private studies on the subject come up with numbers closer to 2-3% for false-reports, but for now let's take the liberal estimate of 8%.
I would really really really like it if everyone could read this article: http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/sexual-violence-report-march.pdf
This is a Department of Justice document summarizing a big hearing on sexual violence in the United states from March of last year. It's long and full of loads of numbers and stuff, but just make it through the executive summary if you can. It dispels a lot of bullshit myths about rape that somehow persist in our culture. Compiled in the summary are studies conducted by the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
If we take the already liberal estimate of 8%, and combine it with the percentage of rapes which go unreported, (as outlined in the document linked above) we can conclude that roughly 1 in 50 women reporting rapes are lying about it. This is no higher than the average rate at which other violent crimes are falsely reported. Now falsely accusing anyone of a crime is a heinous act, and anyone doing so is a shitty person. But for every woman falsifying such a report, 49 are actually victims of sexual assault. To focus solely on "bitch might be lying" completely invalidates their experience.
I know men have it soooo hard in our society, but let's take a look at how other rape cases are viewed by society and the law. Here's a post I wrote a few months ago in another thread:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 26 2011 00:17 Haemonculus wrote:I will state again that anyone, male or female, who falsifies a criminal report, is a shitty person and should not be allowed to get away with it. Criminal investigations should absolutely be based on evidence, and the police and authorities should focus on *that* and now you know, how the victim was dressed, or what she was doing alone by herself that time of night, or, hey it's her ex so maybe she was into it. (and yes, cases HAVE been thrown out because of such trivial things) However there's so much more to this issue than "bitches love to lie about this sort of thing, because you know, they loooove attention." Let's look at some recent high profile rape cases, and look at how the courts and media present them. Because we *don't* treat victims of other crimes like this. If you accuse someone of mugging you, and the police go find him and sure enough, he's got your wallet, they will NOT look at you and ask "Well maybe you were dumb enough to give it to him and later felt bad about it?" or "You're aware that wearing a nice suit this late at night just sends the signal that you're wealthy and a good target for mugging", or "Mr blank, you've given money to the homeless before, perhaps this was just more charity on your part?" Such claims wouldn't be tolerated for an instant. So why are they with cases of sexual assault? We'll start off with a real doozy. 20 men of various ages abduct and gang rape an 11 year old girl. They threaten to beat her if she does not comply. To top things off, some of them video tape it on their phones, and send it around to their friends. It eventually finds its way to the police. Horrible story, but do you know what the media articles talked about? How much makeup she wears, and how her mother is at fault for letting her dress like that. She was described as "attention seeking", and "promiscuous." Various towns people say she wears too much make up, and "looks older", which you know, means she was totally asking for it. A famous case. This one kills me. A female contractor working for KBR overseas claims she was drugged and gang raped. Promised a female-only barracks, she is instead put in the male barracks and reports being harassed numerous times for about a week. One day she wakes up, covered in bruises, (she required 2 separate reconstructive surgeries) and bleeding from well, everywhere. She rushes to the doctor, is treated for extensive injuries, and then promptly locked in a shipping crate when she tries to call home. Yes, locked in a shipping crate for almost a week until one of the guards "took pity on her", and let her use his cell phone to call her father back in the states. Federal agents rescue her, and again, find her locked up like an animal. Due to her contract, she is not legally allowed to pursue a day in court until just recently. Her case was just thrown out, deemed "frivolous" despite all the evidence, and now it looks like KBR wants 2 million dollars fro the trouble. A jury decided that she consented to the sex, (which again was so brutal she required reconstructive surgery), and that due to a contractual clause in which she agreed not to press charges against KBR, that all further incidents in the case, (like being locked up without food/water) had to be thrown out as well. The victim's entire personal history was dragged through the mud, but names/histories of all but one of the accused assailants were barred from the courtroom, (some of the accused have other histories of violence against other women, but this information was disallowed to the jury). Other sexual assault cases against KBR were similarly barred from the court room. How this qualifies as a fair courtroom boggles my mind. How can you have a fair trial if the doctor who treated her injuries, and the federal agents who rescued her, are not allowed to even speak in the courtroom? More details on the history of the case are available here.Another one.. Two cops escort a drunk woman back to her apartment. An hour after they leave, they falsify an emergency call and go back to her apartment. One stands outside and watches, (all caught on security footage btw), while the other went back inside and supposedly raped her while she was unconscious. The officers claimed they didn't have sex with her, even though one of them is *caught on tape* talking about how it wasn't a big deal because he wore a condom. The case was thrown out because the victim was too drunk to remember details of the night. "I'm being treated unfairly!" On the topic of police and rape, here's another one. A off duty cop is caught literally with his pants down, raping a school teacher at gunpoint in an alley. His defense? "The DA is trying to make an example out of me because of the other cops who got acquitted." His lawyers are trying to have the case thrown out on grounds that the prosecution/jury will be biased against him. Despite the fact that he was seen dragging his victim into an alleyway, and that when police responded to the 911 call, he was found, pants around his ankles, forcibly having sex with the victim, gun in hand. An innocent teacher's life is turned upside down on her way to work, and the defense is claiming that HE is being treated unfairly. Anyway, I can bring up many many more cases, just as I'm sure that Frigo can bring up more links to falsified rape reports. Again, falsifying any criminal claim is horrible, but at the end of the day we just don't treat victims of any other crime with this much suspicion, skepticism, and distrust. It doesn't matter how much make up she wears, you DON'T rape an 11 year old girl, much less film it and show all your buddies how cool you are. There is NO excuse for beating a woman so badly she needs reconstructive surgery, and then locking her in a goddamn shipping crate. The fact that an arbitration clause vindicates such actions is fucking sickening. I don't care how drunk she is, just because she can't protest does not mean it's alright to have sex with her. Victims in other criminal cases would never be treated like this. Why can't we take sexual assault seriously?
Moving on: (roughly paraphrased)
"It's not like we collectively decided to not let women do things, it's just that we noticed that they weren't as good at math and stuff."
Really? This is so full of horseshit I don't even know where to start. Women are underrepresented in hard science fields, true. Does this mean that we're inherently worse at math/science? Would you also agree that minorities which are also underrepresented in hard science fields or at the upper tiers of corporate hierarchy are also simply not as capable or intelligent? A hundred years ago there would be *no* women enrolled in any colleges, nor any minorities. Were women/minorities a hundred years ago simply dumber than today by nothing else but biology? Are we then literally thousands of times smarter/more capable than we were then, again strictly speaking by natural ability and completely ignoring socialization? These arguments make no sense whatsoever.
To boot, anyone who's studied human history will tell you that at the most basic levels of human society, that of foraging groups, gender roles are actually more egalitarian than in societies using any other means of production. It isn't until the emergence of intensive agriculture and the division of labor and ownership of resources that heavily gender stratified societies are found. Claiming that such divisions are simply built in to human nature is silly.
Finally, people seem to completely ignore the fact that we're raised differently. Women aren't as competitive? Women just inherently aren't interested in math or science? We aren't raised like you guys. How many parents buy their daughters a chemistry set, or an erector set? Knex or legos, which stimulate creativity and building? We get fucking dolls and toy kitchens. We're actively encouraged to *not* be super competitive. Have you ever watched the shit on TV that's aimed at young girls? Watch a few shows in the Disney channel, showing dolled up middle schoolers bickering between themselves over the attention of cute boys all day, and try not to puke.
Times are changing, and we're starting to encourage our daughters to be interested in more practical science fields, but the women in the workforce today, (whom clearly aren't interested in hard sciences, as they're underrepresented), probably weren't raised to have any interest. It just seems so silly that you can completely ignore socialization, and then claim that women are somehow naturally not as good at things.
Blah, that's my rant for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
