|
That'll take a while.
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.
No I couldn't care less about PC, I'm starting from the assumption that you're an imbecile because you use BS "evidence".
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".
You ignore that it's a patriarchy because it's convenient in the frame of your weak argumentation that basically revolves around "the scientific method sucks" which frankly won't get you far in any academic circle (granted, you evidently don't belong in one).
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.
Women obviously didn't do every undesirable tasks, are you trying to win an argument by doing caricatures? Here's the situation for you since you can't reason: Women will do undesirable tasks THAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH, they cannot go to war even though we don't want to go - so we'll do that ourselves otherwise we will get dominated.
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.
That's just silly, you compare ancient times and modern time as if they were on the same level. Back then, men went to war and women didn't. Now, more women are in universities than men, except in backward societies. Women are not less intelligent, hell - they get better grades for the most part. That's not proof that they're more intelligent in any way, but you have to understand that ancient societies couldn't "determine" that women are less intelligent given that all evidence points towards the idea that they're just as smart or pretty damn close.
You've got jack to disprove the last 15-ish decades that pretty much prove that the last 10,000 years of human history were a fluke, and women are just as capable but weren't given the chance: not because they were unable, but because they didn't have access to anything back then. How many women could read in Rome? Not many - men didn't let them, and when you pretend that they have a reason for doing so, you're doing nothing less than speculating - a common exercise for people who deny the scientific method and would rather look at history without taking every variable (PATRIARCHY) into account.
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?
Sure, it's possible - but there's not much evidence in support of that. In fact the papers I have read point to the contrary, and your paper, as far as I can tell, first off is written by a freaking anthropologist so take that into account, and also it makes no mention of differences between the sexes (correct me if I'm wrong). You're merely extrapolating.
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.
You ask me to answer the question of "why men go to war" without taking into account that they're stronger. But sweetpea, that's more than enough a reason, you needn't make up bullshit questions to further your wacky arguments.
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?
Yes you are, but more importantly, the alternative (what actually happened), is that as extremely basic human societies (tens of thousands of years ago), men were hunter gatherers who protected their women (who carried babies and didn't have the means to hunt as effectively in general). It didn't slowly build towards that, those things were kind of that way with our ancestors and whatnot. Women were never considered less intelligent to begin with, they were just fuckbags - pardon the expression. This societal norm was just kept over thousands of years.
I do debate, and "your answer is bad" is possibly the worst way I've ever seen someone handle an argument.
I explained why your answer is bad - but it's hard to debate against people like you and religious people because they don't need evidence, they're convinced enough and they can easily bring up faulty argument because they themselves are convinced that they're right - thinking that's proof enough for others.
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.
Yeah spears throwing was always viewed as physics no doubt. Given that when I was 8 I was smarter than any cavemen and hadn't even considered the possibility that physics existed but I could throw a ball, I'll pretend that you never brought up physics as something that related to spear throwing. Because I'm nice.
As for "instruction on how to hunt" and stuff, well again, that was reserved to men because they were stronger, if you require an additional reason for that, you're merely being disingenuous. Men are more able therefore they hunted more. That's pretty much the reasoning.
Also, there are probably more ad hominem attacks in these two sentences than there are in my entire post...
I think I explained why. And I'll retort with another ad-hominem-ish attack. You see, the westboro baptist church people are pretty damn convinced of their arguments - but they don't pretend to have decent sources, really - even though they say so. On the other hand, you're very much like the people who pretend that a third of the world is constituted of "reptilians" - reptiles who take human form and govern our world (CEOs, Politicians, etc.). The difference is that you're a little bit less crazy, but you too criticize the scientific method as faulty AND cite an anthropologist's research paper which was written based on the scientific method. Call me rude, but you reject what you dislike and accept what you like. You're an hypocrite.
WHY, then, do men go to war?
They would lose.
"It's because men were better at wa-" so why not better at math? You have NEVER explained this properly.
Why would ancient societies put maths in the hands of women? They couldn't even read or write because we didn't let them learn... People in those times had no reason to think that women were even capable of doing it... You think they had a legitimate reason to think women were unable, I'm telling you it's half true: it looked like women were unable, but that's because women were MADE unable because they were raised like idiots by their idiot mothers until recently.
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)?
Your first post brought up possible counter-arguments, yup. The big one: patriarchy (wow how did you manage!). I'm telling you it's a pretty damn important variable to consider when your main argument is that the last 10k years represents some kind of evidence that women are less intelligent.
To reiterate, my argument is that you conveniently wipe the patriarchy with the side of your hand to not have to deal with an argument that absolutely obliterate your argument which you built in your head without the help of any data. In reality the patriarchy pushed women so far down - not because they were stupid but because they were dominated - that they didn't have access to any sort of knowledge and were put in a situation where they didn't have an incentive to look for said knowledge. They were women, they thought they were inferior.
This is my second language, I live in Quebec. For hundreds of years, quebecers hadn't accomplished anything - we were a French colony dominated by the British. Our culture was very basic, we had no education - a few writers, nothing big. That's not because we're imbeciles - we've proven that by now. We didn't have much access to politics - we didn't get stuff done because we had nothing. Even in 1950, records show that on average, quebecers were less educated the average black person in the US - that's before the desegregation!
The reason why we clawed our way out of it because previous history taught us that we ARE as capable as them. Women, on the other hand, looked back and none of them had ever done anything. The patriarchy gave them that identity - they were lesser humans and they accepted that because they believed it - not necessarily because it was true, in the same way that peasants in the dark ages didn't try to become nobles or whatever. They were told that if they were just peasants, it was because God wanted them to be.
You understand the picture I'm painting here? Because as much as there might be a tiny bit of truth in what you say, I don't care about political correctness. I once made the argument that "how do we know that black or Asian people are not more or less intelligent than white people by 0.1% or something, after all, they're physically different, why would they be exactly the same intellectually?". Regardless of the potential objective discrepancies, today we know that if there is a difference, it is a very small one. Any knowledge of history will tell you that intellectualism was strongly discouraged for women until recently, and even though you ignore that argument, it played a very big role in keeping women from using their brains to further science and knowledge.
So, I painted you a picture of how shit works. You wonder why people give you shit for presenting your opinion? It's because TL is mostly men, and men like science. Nobody cares about your girly gut feeling.
|
If women are incapable how do you explain things like http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/workplace/workplacediv/abstractsindex/perfmathsci.aspx , or most of the google results for something like "women vs men performance in college"
I think one reason people are attacking your stance so harshly is, even despite the fact that you ignore perfectly valid historical arguments, there are plenty of smart women around now that the idea that women are somehow naturally dumber is quite ludicrous.
|
On November 20 2011 02:38 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +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...
Wow. You disproved a general trend with examples! Amazing. <- Sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.
First off, your entire post is a massive logical fallacy. My position is not that ALL women are stupid or anything like that. I don't consider women to be stupid to begin with. My position is that the grand majority of notable everything-ists were men. You showing that ONE philosopher had discourse with ONE woman proves NOTHING. You also prove literally nothing about any of the other necessary societal contributions.
My grasp on history is loose? You find literally ONE thing in my entire post to critique with the knowledge you already have. If I had to pre-empt every position on every great contributor you could take, my original post would be pages long. Notice that your two examples prove literally nothing. Socrates had hundreds of interlocutors; he'd start up a conversation with anyone in the Athenian marketplace. Moreover, I never at ALL in my post implied that NO woman ever did ANYTHING. So congrats, you know one thing about one philosopher. Doesn't disprove my general point and doesn't at ALL prove that my historical knowledge is limited.
"The only ancient school for which we have no evidence for the admission of women is Aristotle's."
This actually supports my side of the argument. You just admitted that women were allowed to contribute, and yet we have no notable female philosophers from this time. By notable, I mean Plato-Aristotle-Socrates level. When anyone makes a list of Greek philosophers, this doesn't include the people philosophers bounced their ideas off of.
I'll quote you again, "[Greek philosophers] lived in a patriarchy with intelligent women that would be able to contribute if they were allowed, and you don't." Well here, the admission of women was prevalent (excepting Aristotle). Why, then, do we have no record of great female philosophers?
"PS. Simon de Beauvoir was a jillion times more interesting than Sartre."
First off, that's an opinion. There's no way to measure what's "interesting" and what's not. Not only is Sartre not what I would consider the greatest of philosophers, he has literally nothing to do with the discussion.
Wow, ONE female philosopher is in the OPINION of one TL'er more interesting than ONE male philosopher who has nothing to do with the conversation? General trend disproved, time to go home folks.
As far as sticking to things I have a "clue" about, we studied Socrates for three days in class. Not a single mention was made of Aspasia. Secondly, it don't matter if he wanted to question women after death or whatever; he was interested in their opinion. So what? He considered them equal? That's fantastic. Why didn't they contribute in all of those Greek schools of thought that you talked about?
Secondly, you're trying to disprove the entirety of my post with by focusing in on ONE example of ONE part of ONE philosopher of ONE area of society. This is like finding a rapist who works at Microsoft and using him to 'prove' that the entirety of people who work at Microsoft are rapists. Of course, anyone without knowledge of that particular rapist saying that the general company Microsoft is a positive force in our economy has "no clue what they're talking about". lol.
"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..."
I actually support Nussbaum's ideas, although most of the time we just use her for random fast K's (this is debatespeak, forget it).
Once again, you focus on only one area. It seems that you studied/like philosophy, and anyone who treads on your hallowed ground without the specific circumstantial knowledge of every possible case is uninformed.
Once again, you try to disprove a TREND with an EXAMPLE. I am not saying that every woman is stupid, or even that women are stupid in general.
Once again, you forget that if you made a list of great philosophers over history, they would be Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau and Nietzsche. The existence of a few great modern women doesn't disprove the general trend.
And here's where it gets interesting. Nowadays, women ARE accepted in schools.
http://facts.stanford.edu/undergraduate.html
http://www.admissionsconsultants.com/college/harvard.asp#harvard_students
Examples, I know, but it's pretty much true of most undergraduate programs.
But we still have an impasse for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century
I actually clicked through a few of these; couldn't find any women. Of course, I didn't go through every one. But the general trend is there; even in more modern times, men predominate women.
Why?
http://facts.stanford.edu/graduate.html
It's a different link - it's stanford's graduate program. Notice that undergrads were pretty much 50-50, but in the graduate program, it's 63-37.
Females are stopping education (completely willingly) much sooner.
User was banned for this post.
|
You have two claims:
(a) That women, on the whole, do/did not contribute. You've chosen a whole bunch of fields. I've chosen to respond in the field I have some expertise in.
I'm showing you that women are perfectly capable of contributing when we let them. I can think of, off the top of my head, major academics in subfields related to my own in the last sixty years that have a great deal of bearing on my work that are women:
Martha Nussbaum
Christine Korsgaard
Julia Annas
M. L. Gill
G. E. M. Anscombe
C. Meinwald
S. Peterson
P. Churchland
D. Frede
This is literally a ten second list of women philosophers that make major contributions to my extraordinarily obscure sub-field. At least two of them will continue to be read in 100 years, and the rest will still be read by specialists. I'm showing, then, that there are lots of modern-day examples of women that contribute in academia, now that they're allowed to. You can say 'this doesn't disprove the general trend' until you're blue in the face, but you have to realize that this looks like a general trend to you because you don't know a whole hell of a lot about the state of the academic literature since the 1960s or 70s.
(b) That we had a good reason, back in the good ol' days, to marginalize women. That reason still applies, thus we should still marginalize them.
This is where historical examples matter. Turns out the vast majority of major thinkers in the good ol' days a couple millennia ago didn't think that women, when they had the necessary prerequisite education and experience, were unable to contribute. So this isn't some new-age PC nonsense, but actually something that's been held for quite a long time.
Classical to Hellenistic Schools that admitted women that had had enough previous education:
The Academy (under Plato and the Skeptics)
The Stoics
The Epicureans
Those that didn't:
The Lyceum
The good ol' days suggested that the general social prejudice against women was pretty silly, too.
As far as sticking to things I have a "clue" about, we studied Socrates for three days in class. Not a single mention was made of Aspasia. Secondly, it don't matter if he wanted to question women after death or whatever; he was interested in their opinion. So what? He considered them equal? That's fantastic. Why didn't they contribute in all of those Greek schools of thought that you talked about?
Are you joking? This is not expertise, and this is not a clue. There are quite a few possible reasons they didn't contribute:
(1) Fewer were present in the school. We know about two. Historical evidence suggests this is true, because only a certain class of woman - the courtesan - was given the proper pre-education necessary to enter the Academy.
(2) The textual record from classical Athens is INCREDIBLY spotty. It doesn't look like it to outsiders, but we lack all of Plato's esoteric work, and all of Aristotle's exoteric work. We have virtually nothing left from Speusippus, Plato's immediate (male) successor. Statistical probability would suggest that given that we don't have much text to start with, what the women wrote, if anything, would probably not be around.
(3) Plato-Socrates-Aristotle level is a ridiculously high level. Of all of each of their students, only one is still read by non-specialists today. One. See above to how many women attended the academy.
On modern graduate programs in Philosophy:
I'm sure anyone else in the field can confirm that this is the general sentiment. Philosophy is generally considered to be one of the last great bastions of misogyny. Increasing female graduate students is actually a major priority for most schools. And it's not because they lack ability.
Your 'general trend' can be explained by a whole lot more factors than 'men are better contributors', and people have been trying to show you that. In addition, I'm trying to show you that in the only field where I know a fair amount, women actually do contribute greatly now that we let more of them do so. Stop the three-days-of-Socrates condescension, please.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 20 2011 03:00 Djzapz wrote:That'll take a while. Show nested quote +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. No I couldn't care less about PC, I'm starting from the assumption that you're an imbecile because you use BS "evidence". Show nested quote +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". You ignore that it's a patriarchy because it's convenient in the frame of your weak argumentation that basically revolves around "the scientific method sucks" which frankly won't get you far in any academic circle (granted, you evidently don't belong in one). Show nested quote +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. Women obviously didn't do every undesirable tasks, are you trying to win an argument by doing caricatures? Here's the situation for you since you can't reason: Women will do undesirable tasks THAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH, they cannot go to war even though we don't want to go - so we'll do that ourselves otherwise we will get dominated. Show nested quote +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. That's just silly, you compare ancient times and modern time as if they were on the same level. Back then, men went to war and women didn't. Now, more women are in universities than men, except in backward societies. Women are not less intelligent, hell - they get better grades for the most part. That's not proof that they're more intelligent in any way, but you have to understand that ancient societies couldn't "determine" that women are less intelligent given that all evidence points towards the idea that they're just as smart or pretty damn close. You've got jack to disprove the last 15-ish decades that pretty much prove that the last 10,000 years of human history were a fluke, and women are just as capable but weren't given the chance: not because they were unable, but because they didn't have access to anything back then. How many women could read in Rome? Not many - men didn't let them, and when you pretend that they have a reason for doing so, you're doing nothing less than speculating - a common exercise for people who deny the scientific method and would rather look at history without taking every variable (PATRIARCHY) into account.Show nested quote +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? Sure, it's possible - but there's not much evidence in support of that. In fact the papers I have read point to the contrary, and your paper, as far as I can tell, first off is written by a freaking anthropologist so take that into account, and also it makes no mention of differences between the sexes (correct me if I'm wrong). You're merely extrapolating. Show nested quote +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. You ask me to answer the question of "why men go to war" without taking into account that they're stronger. But sweetpea, that's more than enough a reason, you needn't make up bullshit questions to further your wacky arguments. Show nested quote +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? Yes you are, but more importantly, the alternative (what actually happened), is that as extremely basic human societies (tens of thousands of years ago), men were hunter gatherers who protected their women (who carried babies and didn't have the means to hunt as effectively in general). It didn't slowly build towards that, those things were kind of that way with our ancestors and whatnot. Women were never considered less intelligent to begin with, they were just fuckbags - pardon the expression. This societal norm was just kept over thousands of years. Show nested quote +I do debate, and "your answer is bad" is possibly the worst way I've ever seen someone handle an argument. I explained why your answer is bad - but it's hard to debate against people like you and religious people because they don't need evidence, they're convinced enough and they can easily bring up faulty argument because they themselves are convinced that they're right - thinking that's proof enough for others. Show nested quote +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. Yeah spears throwing was always viewed as physics no doubt. Given that when I was 8 I was smarter than any cavemen and hadn't even considered the possibility that physics existed but I could throw a ball, I'll pretend that you never brought up physics as something that related to spear throwing. Because I'm nice. As for "instruction on how to hunt" and stuff, well again, that was reserved to men because they were stronger, if you require an additional reason for that, you're merely being disingenuous. Men are more able therefore they hunted more. That's pretty much the reasoning. Show nested quote +Also, there are probably more ad hominem attacks in these two sentences than there are in my entire post... I think I explained why. And I'll retort with another ad-hominem-ish attack. You see, the westboro baptist church people are pretty damn convinced of their arguments - but they don't pretend to have decent sources, really - even though they say so. On the other hand, you're very much like the people who pretend that a third of the world is constituted of "reptilians" - reptiles who take human form and govern our world (CEOs, Politicians, etc.). The difference is that you're a little bit less crazy, but you too criticize the scientific method as faulty AND cite an anthropologist's research paper which was written based on the scientific method. Call me rude, but you reject what you dislike and accept what you like. You're an hypocrite. They would lose. Show nested quote +"It's because men were better at wa-" so why not better at math? You have NEVER explained this properly. Why would ancient societies put maths in the hands of women? They couldn't even read or write because we didn't let them learn... People in those times had no reason to think that women were even capable of doing it... You think they had a legitimate reason to think women were unable, I'm telling you it's half true: it looked like women were unable, but that's because women were MADE unable because they were raised like idiots by their idiot mothers until recently. Show nested quote +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)? Your first post brought up possible counter-arguments, yup. The big one: patriarchy (wow how did you manage!). I'm telling you it's a pretty damn important variable to consider when your main argument is that the last 10k years represents some kind of evidence that women are less intelligent. To reiterate, my argument is that you conveniently wipe the patriarchy with the side of your hand to not have to deal with an argument that absolutely obliterate your argument which you built in your head without the help of any data. In reality the patriarchy pushed women so far down - not because they were stupid but because they were dominated - that they didn't have access to any sort of knowledge and were put in a situation where they didn't have an incentive to look for said knowledge. They were women, they thought they were inferior. This is my second language, I live in Quebec. For hundreds of years, quebecers hadn't accomplished anything - we were a French colony dominated by the British. Our culture was very basic, we had no education - a few writers, nothing big. That's not because we're imbeciles - we've proven that by now. We didn't have much access to politics - we didn't get stuff done because we had nothing. Even in 1950, records show that on average, quebecers were less educated the average black person in the US - that's before the desegregation! The reason why we clawed our way out of it because previous history taught us that we ARE as capable as them. Women, on the other hand, looked back and none of them had ever done anything. The patriarchy gave them that identity - they were lesser humans and they accepted that because they believed it - not necessarily because it was true, in the same way that peasants in the dark ages didn't try to become nobles or whatever. They were told that if they were just peasants, it was because God wanted them to be. You understand the picture I'm painting here? Because as much as there might be a slither of truth in what you say, I don't care about political correctness. I once made the argument that "how do we know that black or Asian people are not more or less intelligent than white people by 0.1% or something, after all, they're physically different, why would they be exactly the same intellectually?". Regardless of the potential objective discrepancies, today we know that if there is a difference, it is a very small one. Any knowledge of history will tell you that intellectualism was strongly discouraged for women until recently, and even though you ignore that argument, it played a very big role in keeping women from using their brains to further science and knowledge. So, I painted you a picture of how shit works. You wonder why people give you shit for presenting your opinion? It's because TL is mostly men, and men like science. Nobody cares about your girly gut feeling.
Your main argument, once again, is patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy.
"To reiterate, my argument is that you conveniently wipe the patriarchy with the side of your hand to not have to deal with an argument that absolutely obliterate your argument which you built in your head without the help of any data. In reality the patriarchy pushed women so far down - not because they were stupid but because they were dominated - that they didn't have access to any sort of knowledge and were put in a situation where they didn't have an incentive to look for said knowledge. They were women, they thought they were inferior."
My answer to this is not brushing it aside. I've stated this, I don't know how many times.
Why do men go to war? Your answer: If not, they would lose.
Why do men go to school? My answer: If not, they would lose.
The patriarchal society is a RESULT of our realization that women just weren't as good at intellectual pursuits. If we kept them out of any power whatsoever, then why do men go to war? You say it, again and again. Men are BETTER at war. You make no mention of a patriarchal society, of course, because it doesn't match up to the facts.
Suddenly, however, when we're talking about school, this patriarchal society snaps into existence. How does THAT make sense?
If the patriarchy were absolute, then we'd make women go to war. We'd keep women out of everything.
The Greeks had many female gods, the hindus as well. The Native Americans respected women as symbolic of nature. Many African cultures are matriarchies. It is NOT true that we kept women down on their knees for all time.
I'll emphasize this so you might maybe see it.
IF WE LIVED IN A TRULY AND ABSOLUTE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, WOMEN WOULD GO TO WAR. WOMEN DO NOT GO TO WAR BECAUSE MEN ARE BETTER AT IT. THERE IS NO MAJOR REASON, GIVEN THAT THE PREVIOUS IS ACCEPTED AS TRUE, THAT WOMEN DO NOT GO TO SCHOOL BECAUSE MEN ARE BETTER AT IT AS WELL.
Got it? I'm not ignoring the patriarchal society. It SUPPORTS my point. The REASON we set up this male dominated intellectual society was because we recognized something. I have no evidence? I'm using your own arguments as evidence. The REASON we set up war as a male institution was because we recognized the same thing. I've made this argument in like 5 posts now, and you've never responded.
You say that "we would assume that women couldn't read or write". Why/how? What evidence do you have of that? I can see (and agree) that men would absolutely be the ones to wage war. Why is it suddenly the result of a patriarchal society that men would be the ones to go to school?
Why would men, when everyone can recognize that reading and writing is not a physical activity, assume that because women are smaller they can't read or write? The answer is because it wasn't about physical stature - it was about intellectual development.
You ignore that it's a patriarchy because it's convenient in the frame of your weak argumentation that basically revolves around "the scientific method sucks" which frankly won't get you far in any academic circle (granted, you evidently don't belong in one).
I'm not saying the scientific method sucks. The scientific method is our best approximation of reality, and what better approximation of reality than reality itself?
You wouldn't conduct tests of an airplane wing without considering air resistance.
You wouldn't conduct tests of human intelligence without considering their contribution to society.
Also, I have a weighted academic GPA of 4.8. I could care less about your childish instigation.
That's just silly, you compare ancient times and modern time as if they were on the same level. Back then, men went to war and women didn't. Now, more women are in universities than men, except in backward societies. Women are not less intelligent, hell - they get better grades for the most part. That's not proof that they're more intelligent in any way, but you have to understand that ancient societies couldn't "determine" that women are less intelligent given that all evidence points towards the idea that they're just as smart or pretty damn close.
Figure A (undergrad): http://facts.stanford.edu/undergraduate.html - 48% women, 52% men
Figure B (grad):http://facts.stanford.edu/graduate.html - 37% women, 67% men
Sorry, no.
http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/statistics.htm - 39% and 28% women in undergrad and grad, respectively.
Sorry, no.
http://web.mit.edu/registrar/stats/gender/index.html - 45% and 31% women in undergrad and grad, respectively.
Sorry, no.
These universities, btw, are strict meritocracies. You get in based ONLY on how damn good you are (esp. caltech and mit, who don't care as much about extracurricular stuff as math olympiads, etc.)
So much for your "science" and my "girly gut feeling". TL opposes my opinion because it's politically incorrect and we like whiteknighting.
"You understand the picture I'm painting here? Because as much as there might be a slither of truth in what you say, I don't care about political correctness. I once made the argument that "how do we know that black or Asian people are not more or less intelligent than white people by 0.1% or something, after all, they're physically different, why would they be exactly the same intellectually?". Regardless of the potential objective discrepancies, today we know that if there is a difference, it is a very small one. Any knowledge of history will tell you that intellectualism was strongly discouraged for women until recently, and even though you ignore that argument, it played a very big role in keeping women from using their brains to further science and knowledge."
I'm not saying that being physically different = stupid. Once again, congrats for putting words in my mouth.
Intelligence and strength are BOTH physical characteristics. If women are worse in one, why not the other?
Take China, for instance. The students there go to school from like 9 to 6, cram school till 10, homework till 2.
If you did this thing in America, people would raise a massive shit. Hell, a large portion of Americans believe in Creation and Gawd A'mighty and can't find the US on a map.
Do you think it's a coincidence that China's economy is burgeoning at an exponential rate and the American economy is stalling?
They're genetically (intellectually) better. Straight up fact, friend.
"Any knowledge of history will tell you that intellectualism was strongly discouraged for women until recently". I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm analyzing the reasons BEHIND that fact, and have been doing so for multiple posts. You like to ignore this, of course.
Also, even with recent developments, the colleges (like above) still demonstrate that in grad (and even undergrad) where the material gets tough and courses tougher, MEN hang in.
It isn't because of discrimination - see Stanford. It goes from 50-50 to 60-40, and the discrepancy is even more pronounced in more purely intellectual schools.
Undergrad weighs extracurriculars and volunteering and all of these other non-academic things. Grad schools could give two shits if you play the guitar and help orphans.
It seems pretty obvious that girls are relatively MUCH better/more pervasive at undergrad than at grad.
Coincidence? I'm not saying NO, but I'm seriously doubting the other side.
|
How are you not banned with your recent posts? You could not be more wrong in everything you say.
Where do I even start? What is your major because there is no way you got past Sociology with this misunderstood mindset of patriarchy and gender-roles.
The patriarchal society is a RESULT of our realization that women just weren't as good at intellectual pursuits. If we kept them out of any power whatsoever, then why do men go to war? You say it, again and again. Men are BETTER at war. You make no mention of a patriarchal society, of course, because it doesn't match up to the facts.
Suddenly, however, when we're talking about school, this patriarchal society snaps into existence. How does THAT make sense?
ROFL NO
PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IS NOT A RESULT THAT WOMEN WEREN'T AS GOOD AT INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS
It's due to gender roles and being confined within those gender roles, women went to school to learn how to tend to children and clean the house because GENDER-ROLES were established that men were the breadmakers and women stayed at home.
Haven't you fucking heard of the mother-child unit? Are you fucking kidding with me? This is basic shit, everyone knows this crap. They weren't as good at intellectual pursuits, they just were never given the opportunity to do so because of the gender-roles that cemented their place in society that prevented them from getting equal rights.
My God, that's for starters. Read up on the three female revolutions, read up on the different kinds of feminists. There are a lot of radical ones and a lot of sane and fair ones.
|
The patriarchal society is a RESULT of our realization that women just weren't as good at intellectual pursuits.
Blah, I give up.
If anyone needs me I'll be in the kitchen.
|
djbhINDI I don't think you are so much in the wrong as a lot of people do and you are clearly a sharp dude but some of the stuff you say is pretty dumb
Intelligence and strength are BOTH physical characteristics. If women are worse in one, why not the other?
what? wtf. one has to do with musculature and one has to do with brain structure. why would women being less physically strong have any sort of bearing on how their brain works. whats the jump in logic that I am missing here?
"Any knowledge of history will tell you that intellectualism was strongly discouraged for women until recently". I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm analyzing the reasons BEHIND that fact, and have been doing so for multiple posts. You like to ignore this, of course.
are you seriously suggesting the reason for a history of bias towards women is because women are actually less capable? does that at all fall in line with the history of prejudice humans have for differing ethnic and religious groups? what about countries that don't yet promote gender equality, say some of the more "backward" middle eastern countries. do they have it right?
|
On November 20 2011 04:17 ikl2 wrote:You have two claims: (a) That women, on the whole, do/did not contribute. You've chosen a whole bunch of fields. I've chosen to respond in the field I have some expertise in. I'm showing you that women are perfectly capable of contributing when we let them. I can think of, off the top of my head, major academics in subfields related to my own in the last sixty years that have a great deal of bearing on my work that are women: Martha Nussbaum Christine Korsgaard Julia Annas M. L. Gill G. E. M. Anscombe C. Meinwald S. Peterson P. Churchland D. Frede This is literally a ten second list of women philosophers that make major contributions to my extraordinarily obscure sub-field. At least two of them will continue to be read in 100 years, and the rest will still be read by specialists. I'm showing, then, that there are lots of modern-day examples of women that contribute in academia, now that they're allowed to. You can say 'this doesn't disprove the general trend' until you're blue in the face, but you have to realize that this looks like a general trend to you because you don't know a whole hell of a lot about the state of the academic literature since the 1960s or 70s. (b) That we had a good reason, back in the good ol' days, to marginalize women. That reason still applies, thus we should still marginalize them. This is where historical examples matter. Turns out the vast majority of major thinkers in the good ol' days a couple millennia ago didn't think that women, when they had the necessary prerequisite education and experience, were unable to contribute. So this isn't some new-age PC nonsense, but actually something that's been held for quite a long time. Classical to Hellenistic Schools that admitted women that had had enough previous education: The Academy (under Plato and the Skeptics) The Stoics The Epicureans Those that didn't: The Lyceum The good ol' days suggested that the general social prejudice against women was pretty silly, too. Show nested quote +As far as sticking to things I have a "clue" about, we studied Socrates for three days in class. Not a single mention was made of Aspasia. Secondly, it don't matter if he wanted to question women after death or whatever; he was interested in their opinion. So what? He considered them equal? That's fantastic. Why didn't they contribute in all of those Greek schools of thought that you talked about? Are you joking? This is not expertise, and this is not a clue. There are quite a few possible reasons they didn't contribute: (1) Fewer were present in the school. We know about two. Historical evidence suggests this is true, because only a certain class of woman - the courtesan - was given the proper pre-education necessary to enter the Academy. (2) The textual record from classical Athens is INCREDIBLY spotty. It doesn't look like it to outsiders, but we lack all of Plato's esoteric work, and all of Aristotle's exoteric work. We have virtually nothing left from Speusippus, Plato's immediate (male) successor. Statistical probability would suggest that given that we don't have much text to start with, what the women wrote, if anything, would probably not be around. (3) Plato-Socrates-Aristotle level is a ridiculously high level. Of all of each of their students, only one is still read by non-specialists today. One. See above to how many women attended the academy. On modern graduate programs in Philosophy: I'm sure anyone else in the field can confirm that this is the general sentiment. Philosophy is generally considered to be one of the last great bastions of misogyny. Increasing female graduate students is actually a major priority for most schools. And it's not because they lack ability. Your 'general trend' can be explained by a whole lot more factors than 'men are better contributors', and people have been trying to show you that. In addition, I'm trying to show you that in the only field where I know a fair amount, women actually do contribute greatly now that we let more of them do so. Stop the three-days-of-Socrates condescension, please.
lol, three days should be (and was) enough to flush out everything that was important. I know that you want to show how great your knowledge of a fairly useless subject is, but I've studied music theory for 11 years and almost everything crucial could be expressed in 3 days.
1) Fantastic. Doesn't explain anything. So what if only courtesans were allowed? None of them did anything.
2) Because, maybe, it wasn't as important? None of the other male stuff was found either.
3) You have a point here. The point is erased by
a) The fact that out of all of the stuff i listed, philosophy was and is the LEAST important (yes, including art).
b) The fact that you STILL have not proven what you said - that women given the opportunity back then did shit. You say we have no evidence - that the writings we have are spotty. Why, then, should we leap to the conclusion that everyone was contributing equally?
Philosophy? The last bastion of misogyny?
I'm still laughing at that one.
Increasing female graduate students is politically correct and very nice and liberal and 'fair'.
Do you know what affirmative action is? It's placing minorities with inferior accomplishments at the same level as other students. It's not because they HAVE ability. It's because it's mandated by the government.
|
When I first read your recent misinformed posts: ![[image loading]](http://www.xtothezracing.com/files/icwhutudidtherep1.gif)
Do you honestly have any clue of what you're talking about? Like... I'm not too fond of some feminist groups (especially the ones who feel that their own sexual reproductive organs are the ones that chain them to their duties), but you are seriously so far misinformed.
Jibba said it best and how you manage to ever cooperate alongside people is beyond my own form of comprehension.
I mean look at this shit: f the patriarchy were absolute, then we'd make women go to war. We'd keep women out of everything.
The Greeks had many female gods, the hindus as well. The Native Americans respected women as symbolic of nature. Many African cultures are matriarchies. It is NOT true that we kept women down on their knees for all time.
This is fucking stupid. This is just downright dumb, it doesn't even make sense. We'd send women to war if patriarchy was absolute? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PATRIARCHY IS? I can spell out something more rational with rice and mashed potatoes than this.
The reason you're wrong is because if we made women go to war, no one would take care of the children. Soldiers is seen as a job or career (hence why they always advertise about paying you to college and not about dying or what you can learn). Women wouldn't go to war or "fight for their country" BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY.
SO IN REALITY, PATRIARCHY PREVENTS WOMEN FROM GOING TO WAR, NOT SENDING THEM ROFL GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
The Greeks had many female gods, the hindus as well. The Native Americans respected women as symbolic of nature. Many African cultures are matriarchies. It is NOT true that we kept women down on their knees for all time.
-________________________________-
HOW CAN THIS MAKE ANY SENSE! WE DONT OPPRESS WOMEN BECAUSE SOME CIVILIZATIONS HERALD A FEMALE GOD.
OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT PATRIARCHY AT ALL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH KEEPING WOMEN DOWN ON THEIR KNEES.
News flash: valuing women for their reproductive organs (baby-making) and valuing their place in society (taking care of the children/housework) can still mean we are keeping women down. Similar to a dog, if I pet the dog, hug her and tell her she is the greatest friend but never give it the chance or think he is good enough to do more than be a friend THATS OPPRESSING HIS FREEDOM AND CHOICES IN HIS LIFE
SEE THAT COMPARISON I MADE? If you oppress women to prevent them from getting any jobs or getting any proper school, they are forced to care for their kids. Thanking them because this is all they can do due to the patriarchal arch DOESNT MAKE IT ALL BETTER.
|
|
|
On November 20 2011 04:38 Torte de Lini wrote:How are you not banned with your recent posts? You could not be more wrong in everything you say. Where do I even start? What is your major because there is no way you got past Sociology with this misunderstood mindset of patriarchy and gender-roles. Show nested quote +
The patriarchal society is a RESULT of our realization that women just weren't as good at intellectual pursuits. If we kept them out of any power whatsoever, then why do men go to war? You say it, again and again. Men are BETTER at war. You make no mention of a patriarchal society, of course, because it doesn't match up to the facts.
Suddenly, however, when we're talking about school, this patriarchal society snaps into existence. How does THAT make sense?
ROFL NO PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IS NOT A RESULT THAT WOMEN WEREN'T AS GOOD AT INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS It's due to gender roles and being confined within those gender roles, women went to school to learn how to tend to children and clean the house because GENDER-ROLES were established that men were the breadmakers and women stayed at home. Haven't you fucking heard of the mother-child unit? Are you fucking kidding with me? This is basic shit, everyone knows this crap. They weren't as good at intellectual pursuits, they just were never given the opportunity to do so because of the gender-roles that cemented their place in society that prevented them from getting equal rights. My God, that's for starters. Read up on the three female revolutions, read up on the different kinds of feminists. There are a lot of radical ones and a lot of sane and fair ones.
If being wrong is a reason to be banned, we'd ban every noob on the strategy forum. There's nothing wrong in being incorrect. What would be wrong is if I attacked you personally, swore, flamed, or trolled. We're simply having a discussion here, and I'm providing evidence for much of what I say. The reason I'm not banned is because TL's mods (in my experience) are not people who use their power unfairly just because they happen to disagree. I was warned by Mani7 himself, which carries considerable weight. Hence, I'm making a concerted effort here not to flame, ad hominem, or swear. I'm also emphasizing that everything I saw is either postulation or evidence to support that postulation. "Different opinions are welcome...please try to keep debate civil. Flaming is unacceptable on these forums, and ad hominem attacks are not appreciated." What am I doing wrong?
ROFL NO
PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY IS NOT A RESULT THAT WOMEN WEREN'T AS GOOD AT INTELLECTUAL PURSUITS
It's due to gender roles and being confined within those gender roles, women went to school to learn how to tend to children and clean the house because GENDER-ROLES were established that men were the breadmakers and women stayed at home.
Once again, I'm not arguing that patriarchal society and gender roles (which are part of patriarchal society, not its cause) are the result of a realization. As it was (probably) men that developed tools and hunting methods and fire and technology in general, women seemed inferior. Another poster talks of how Greek societies let certain women go to school; evidently they were unable to demonstrate performance. It's not like we demonized and dehumanized women; in almost every pagan society, many of the gods were female (Greeks, Romans, Hindus, Aztecs). Women do unpleasant stuff (cooking, cleaning) because they're better at it. Men do unpleasant stuff (war) because we're better at it.
It's rationality that defined gender roles.
Haven't you fucking heard of the mother-child unit? Are you fucking kidding with me? This is basic shit, everyone knows this crap. They weren't as good at intellectual pursuits, they just were never given the opportunity to do so because of the gender-roles that cemented their place in society that prevented them from getting equal rights.
I understand that you are an individual with substantial backing and reputation on this forum. I don't understand why that is an excuse to flame the hell out of me (not that I care, but you're the one dropping the b-word and pointing fingers).
Firstly, I have proven (a few sentences up) that they were indeed in cases given equal opportunity.
Secondly, I'll reiterate what I've proven about modern institutions:
And
Also, even with recent developments, the colleges (like above) still demonstrate that in grad (and even undergrad) where the material gets tough and courses tougher, MEN hang in.
It isn't because of discrimination - see Stanford. It goes from 50-50 to 60-40, and the discrepancy is even more pronounced in more purely intellectual schools.
Undergrad weighs extracurriculars and volunteering and all of these other non-academic things. Grad schools could give two shits if you play the guitar and help orphans.
It seems pretty obvious that girls are relatively MUCH better/more pervasive at undergrad than at grad.
Coincidence? I'm not saying NO, but I'm seriously doubting the other side.
Even in today's world, where women ARE being given the chance, they fail, as does your dissertation, to show relatively equivalent results.
My God, that's for starters. Read up on the three female revolutions, read up on the different kinds of feminists. There are a lot of radical ones and a lot of sane and fair ones.
Where did I say that feminists are all insane? Where did I say that females don't contribute AT ALL?
There are plenty of issues where women deserve more rights. I hate fundamentalist islamists who make women wear Burqas and treat them like dogs. I also hate parts of the Bible, which state that women not virgins on wedding night should be killed and that if a man rapes a woman, he can marry her. That's TOTAL bullshit. I'm not a misogynist. I love my mother, and there are plenty of females who make me look like an absolute idiot.
I'm just saying that there's some backing to sexism in the workplace; it isn't irrational and it isn't unfair.
Even if all I've argued in this debate is wrong, I'm still right in a way. People talk of how women are deprived of role models, are less motivated, etc.
We still live in a society where men do much of the important work and women do some (not NONE) but some. It's still empirically true that a corporation is simply more likely to get more bang for its buck with a man than with a woman. Women have to care for the kids, women have to cook, women have to clean. I'm not denying that this is true. I'm not denying that this doesn't hurt their chances of contribution.
I'm saying the REASON it's this way is because we recognized who the breadwinners were and were not, long ago, and it has been ingrained in human culture long enough that it has become true.
Sexism has backing regardless of women's abilities. Its backing arises also in the placebo effect; women aren't going to be as good as men because they don't think they can be.
My primary, overarching argument is that this situation arose because of original inferiority (much as Africa's current state arose from previous civil and societal and technological inefficiencies) but even that's not true, the situation persists.
Africa is still a torn and poor continent, and women are still, for the most part, less likely to give you as much bang for the buck.
|
On November 20 2011 04:47 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 04:17 ikl2 wrote:You have two claims: (a) That women, on the whole, do/did not contribute. You've chosen a whole bunch of fields. I've chosen to respond in the field I have some expertise in. I'm showing you that women are perfectly capable of contributing when we let them. I can think of, off the top of my head, major academics in subfields related to my own in the last sixty years that have a great deal of bearing on my work that are women: Martha Nussbaum Christine Korsgaard Julia Annas M. L. Gill G. E. M. Anscombe C. Meinwald S. Peterson P. Churchland D. Frede This is literally a ten second list of women philosophers that make major contributions to my extraordinarily obscure sub-field. At least two of them will continue to be read in 100 years, and the rest will still be read by specialists. I'm showing, then, that there are lots of modern-day examples of women that contribute in academia, now that they're allowed to. You can say 'this doesn't disprove the general trend' until you're blue in the face, but you have to realize that this looks like a general trend to you because you don't know a whole hell of a lot about the state of the academic literature since the 1960s or 70s. (b) That we had a good reason, back in the good ol' days, to marginalize women. That reason still applies, thus we should still marginalize them. This is where historical examples matter. Turns out the vast majority of major thinkers in the good ol' days a couple millennia ago didn't think that women, when they had the necessary prerequisite education and experience, were unable to contribute. So this isn't some new-age PC nonsense, but actually something that's been held for quite a long time. Classical to Hellenistic Schools that admitted women that had had enough previous education: The Academy (under Plato and the Skeptics) The Stoics The Epicureans Those that didn't: The Lyceum The good ol' days suggested that the general social prejudice against women was pretty silly, too. As far as sticking to things I have a "clue" about, we studied Socrates for three days in class. Not a single mention was made of Aspasia. Secondly, it don't matter if he wanted to question women after death or whatever; he was interested in their opinion. So what? He considered them equal? That's fantastic. Why didn't they contribute in all of those Greek schools of thought that you talked about? Are you joking? This is not expertise, and this is not a clue. There are quite a few possible reasons they didn't contribute: (1) Fewer were present in the school. We know about two. Historical evidence suggests this is true, because only a certain class of woman - the courtesan - was given the proper pre-education necessary to enter the Academy. (2) The textual record from classical Athens is INCREDIBLY spotty. It doesn't look like it to outsiders, but we lack all of Plato's esoteric work, and all of Aristotle's exoteric work. We have virtually nothing left from Speusippus, Plato's immediate (male) successor. Statistical probability would suggest that given that we don't have much text to start with, what the women wrote, if anything, would probably not be around. (3) Plato-Socrates-Aristotle level is a ridiculously high level. Of all of each of their students, only one is still read by non-specialists today. One. See above to how many women attended the academy. On modern graduate programs in Philosophy: I'm sure anyone else in the field can confirm that this is the general sentiment. Philosophy is generally considered to be one of the last great bastions of misogyny. Increasing female graduate students is actually a major priority for most schools. And it's not because they lack ability. Your 'general trend' can be explained by a whole lot more factors than 'men are better contributors', and people have been trying to show you that. In addition, I'm trying to show you that in the only field where I know a fair amount, women actually do contribute greatly now that we let more of them do so. Stop the three-days-of-Socrates condescension, please. lol, three days should be (and was) enough to flush out everything that was important. I know that you want to show how great your knowledge of a fairly useless subject is, but I've studied music theory for 11 years and almost everything crucial could be expressed in 3 days. 1) Fantastic. Doesn't explain anything. So what if only courtesans were allowed? None of them did anything. 2) Because, maybe, it wasn't as important? None of the other male stuff was found either. 3) You have a point here. The point is erased by a) The fact that out of all of the stuff i listed, philosophy was and is the LEAST important (yes, including art). b) The fact that you STILL have not proven what you said - that women given the opportunity back then did shit. You say we have no evidence - that the writings we have are spotty. Why, then, should we leap to the conclusion that everyone was contributing equally? Philosophy? The last bastion of misogyny? I'm still laughing at that one. Increasing female graduate students is politically correct and very nice and liberal and 'fair'. Do you know what affirmative action is? It's placing minorities with inferior accomplishments at the same level as other students. It's not because they HAVE ability. It's because it's mandated by the government.
You're making absurd logical leaps. What I'm saying is we have absolutely no way of knowing whether your assertion - that women contributed nothing of note in ancient Athens - is correct. This is because we have spotty evidence for any assertion about this sort of subject. I am not, on the basis of this, concluding that women were major contributors.
What I am concluding is that on the basis of the last 40 years of philosophy, women are major contributors. This, interestingly, lines up with around the time we let them start contributing.
I also like the part where you dismiss evidence you don't like as irrelevant. You brought up ancient philosophy. I wouldn't be here if you didn't...
Also, I suspect I know more about the state of academic phil than you do, but hey, feel free to dismiss my claim (that is common among people who work in the field) that academic philosophy is misogynistic.
PS. I'm done. This goes beyond useful argument.
I know that you want to show how great your knowledge of a fairly useless subject is...
Condescension from the position of admittedly knowing almost nothing about the subject is my absolute favourite flavour.
Edit 2: The claim that Plato's esoteric work was probably not very important to the philosophers that followed is so patently untrue that it hurts. We've been wanting access to 'On the Good' since at least St. Augustine.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 20 2011 04:52 Torte de Lini wrote:When I first read your recent misinformed posts: Do you honestly have any clue of what you're talking about? Like... I'm not too fond of some feminist groups (especially the ones who feel that their own sexual reproductive organs are the ones that chain them to their duties), but you are seriously so far misinformed. Jibba said it best and how you manage to ever cooperate alongside people is beyond my own form of comprehension. I mean look at this shit: Show nested quote +f the patriarchy were absolute, then we'd make women go to war. We'd keep women out of everything.
The Greeks had many female gods, the hindus as well. The Native Americans respected women as symbolic of nature. Many African cultures are matriarchies. It is NOT true that we kept women down on their knees for all time.
This is fucking stupid. This is just downright dumb, it doesn't even make sense. We'd send women to war if patriarchy was absolute? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PATRIARCHY IS? I can spell out something more rational with rice and mashed potatoes than this. The reason you're wrong is because if we made women go to war, no one would take care of the children. Soldiers is seen as a job or career (hence why they always advertise about paying you to college and not about dying or what you can learn). Women wouldn't go to war or "fight for their country" BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY. SO IN REALITY, PATRIARCHY PREVENTS WOMEN FROM GOING TO WAR, NOT SENDING THEM ROFL GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Show nested quote +The Greeks had many female gods, the hindus as well. The Native Americans respected women as symbolic of nature. Many African cultures are matriarchies. It is NOT true that we kept women down on their knees for all time. -________________________________- HOW CAN THIS MAKE ANY SENSE! WE DONT OPPRESS WOMEN BECAUSE SOME CIVILIZATIONS HERALD A FEMALE GOD. OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT PATRIARCHY AT ALL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH KEEPING WOMEN DOWN ON THEIR KNEES. News flash: valuing women for their reproductive organs (baby-making) and valuing their place in society (taking care of the children/housework) can still mean we are keeping women down. Similar to a dog, if I pet the dog, hug her and tell her she is the greatest friend but never give it the chance or think he is good enough to do more than be a friend THATS OPPRESSING HIS FREEDOM AND CHOICES IN HIS LIFE SEE THAT COMPARISON I MADE? If you oppress women to prevent them from getting any jobs or getting any proper school, they are forced to care for their kids. Thanking them because this is all they can do due to the patriarchal arch DOESNT MAKE IT ALL BETTER.
This is fucking stupid. This is just downright dumb, it doesn't even make sense. We'd send women to war if patriarchy was absolute? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PATRIARCHY IS? I can spell out something more rational with rice and mashed potatoes than this.
The reason you're wrong is because if we made women go to war, no one would take care of the children. Soldiers is seen as a job or career (hence why they always advertise about paying you to college and not about dying or what you can learn). Women wouldn't go to war or "fight for their country" BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY.
SO IN REALITY, PATRIARCHY PREVENTS WOMEN FROM GOING TO WAR, NOT SENDING THEM ROFL GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Soldiering (especially in WW1 and WWII) was not a job or career. It was a bitter, shitty, horrible obligation and men decided that we should do it.
If we sent women to war, nobody'd take care of the children.
It could be the men! But wait, men aren't as good at taking care of kids. And women aren't as good at war.
Therefore, men should go to war and women should take care of kids.
Ok? So why not:
If we sent women to school, nobody'd take care of the children.
It could be the men! But wait, men aren't as good at taking care of kids. And women aren't as good at school
Therefore, men should go to school and women should take care of kids.
I literally preempted and answered your position in this way my first post. You ignored it, of course.
News flash: valuing women for their reproductive organs (baby-making) and valuing their place in society (taking care of the children/housework) can still mean we are keeping women down. Similar to a dog, if I pet the dog, hug her and tell her she is the greatest friend but never give it the chance or think he is good enough to do more than be a friend THATS OPPRESSING HIS FREEDOM AND CHOICES IN HIS LIFE
SEE THAT COMPARISON I MADE? If you oppress women to prevent them from getting any jobs or getting any proper school, they are forced to care for their kids. Thanking them because this is all they can do due to the patriarchal arch DOESNT MAKE IT ALL BETTER.
Notice that we don't have any dog gods (save Anubis, and Egyptians worshipped cats, so go figure).
Valuing them for reproductive organs is not the same thing as revering the female as constituent of the divine. Also, we give females the opportunity to vote. In fact, we give them the opportunity to go to college. I'll reiterate (for the third time now) that even though we give them opportunities, they reject them.
Secondly, I'll reiterate what I've proven about modern institutions:
Figure A (undergrad): http://facts.stanford.edu/undergraduate.html - 48% women, 52% men Figure B (grad):http://facts.stanford.edu/graduate.html - 37% women, 67% men http://www.registrar.caltech.edu/statistics.htm - 39% and 28% women in undergrad and grad, respectively. http://web.mit.edu/registrar/stats/gender/index.html - 45% and 31% women in undergrad and grad, respectively. These universities, btw, are strict meritocracies. You get in based ONLY on how damn good you are (esp. caltech and mit, who don't care as much about extracurricular stuff as math olympiads, etc.) So much for your "science" and my "girly gut feeling". TL opposes my opinion because it's politically incorrect and we like whiteknighting. And Also, even with recent developments, the colleges (like above) still demonstrate that in grad (and even undergrad) where the material gets tough and courses tougher, MEN hang in. It isn't because of discrimination - see Stanford. It goes from 50-50 to 60-40, and the discrepancy is even more pronounced in more purely intellectual schools. Undergrad weighs extracurriculars and volunteering and all of these other non-academic things. Grad schools could give two shits if you play the guitar and help orphans. It seems pretty obvious that girls are relatively MUCH better/more pervasive at undergrad than at grad. Coincidence? I'm not saying NO, but I'm seriously doubting the other side. Even in today's world, where women ARE being given the chance, they fail, as does your dissertation, to show relatively equivalent results.
|
Is it even possible to accuse a woman of sexism? I don't think I've ever seen it before even though sometimes it would be the proper response.
This is a funny statement, because I see it all the time. You should hang around more social justice-related forums!
|
On November 20 2011 05:30 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +Is it even possible to accuse a woman of sexism? I don't think I've ever seen it before even though sometimes it would be the proper response. This is a funny statement, because I see it all the time. You should hang around more social justice-related forums!
No, just read http://jezebel.com/
If OP wants to rant about female sexism: he should go read Jezebel for a month. That would validate his stance a lot better.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 20 2011 05:25 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 04:47 djbhINDI wrote:On November 20 2011 04:17 ikl2 wrote:You have two claims: (a) That women, on the whole, do/did not contribute. You've chosen a whole bunch of fields. I've chosen to respond in the field I have some expertise in. I'm showing you that women are perfectly capable of contributing when we let them. I can think of, off the top of my head, major academics in subfields related to my own in the last sixty years that have a great deal of bearing on my work that are women: Martha Nussbaum Christine Korsgaard Julia Annas M. L. Gill G. E. M. Anscombe C. Meinwald S. Peterson P. Churchland D. Frede This is literally a ten second list of women philosophers that make major contributions to my extraordinarily obscure sub-field. At least two of them will continue to be read in 100 years, and the rest will still be read by specialists. I'm showing, then, that there are lots of modern-day examples of women that contribute in academia, now that they're allowed to. You can say 'this doesn't disprove the general trend' until you're blue in the face, but you have to realize that this looks like a general trend to you because you don't know a whole hell of a lot about the state of the academic literature since the 1960s or 70s. (b) That we had a good reason, back in the good ol' days, to marginalize women. That reason still applies, thus we should still marginalize them. This is where historical examples matter. Turns out the vast majority of major thinkers in the good ol' days a couple millennia ago didn't think that women, when they had the necessary prerequisite education and experience, were unable to contribute. So this isn't some new-age PC nonsense, but actually something that's been held for quite a long time. Classical to Hellenistic Schools that admitted women that had had enough previous education: The Academy (under Plato and the Skeptics) The Stoics The Epicureans Those that didn't: The Lyceum The good ol' days suggested that the general social prejudice against women was pretty silly, too. As far as sticking to things I have a "clue" about, we studied Socrates for three days in class. Not a single mention was made of Aspasia. Secondly, it don't matter if he wanted to question women after death or whatever; he was interested in their opinion. So what? He considered them equal? That's fantastic. Why didn't they contribute in all of those Greek schools of thought that you talked about? Are you joking? This is not expertise, and this is not a clue. There are quite a few possible reasons they didn't contribute: (1) Fewer were present in the school. We know about two. Historical evidence suggests this is true, because only a certain class of woman - the courtesan - was given the proper pre-education necessary to enter the Academy. (2) The textual record from classical Athens is INCREDIBLY spotty. It doesn't look like it to outsiders, but we lack all of Plato's esoteric work, and all of Aristotle's exoteric work. We have virtually nothing left from Speusippus, Plato's immediate (male) successor. Statistical probability would suggest that given that we don't have much text to start with, what the women wrote, if anything, would probably not be around. (3) Plato-Socrates-Aristotle level is a ridiculously high level. Of all of each of their students, only one is still read by non-specialists today. One. See above to how many women attended the academy. On modern graduate programs in Philosophy: I'm sure anyone else in the field can confirm that this is the general sentiment. Philosophy is generally considered to be one of the last great bastions of misogyny. Increasing female graduate students is actually a major priority for most schools. And it's not because they lack ability. Your 'general trend' can be explained by a whole lot more factors than 'men are better contributors', and people have been trying to show you that. In addition, I'm trying to show you that in the only field where I know a fair amount, women actually do contribute greatly now that we let more of them do so. Stop the three-days-of-Socrates condescension, please. lol, three days should be (and was) enough to flush out everything that was important. I know that you want to show how great your knowledge of a fairly useless subject is, but I've studied music theory for 11 years and almost everything crucial could be expressed in 3 days. 1) Fantastic. Doesn't explain anything. So what if only courtesans were allowed? None of them did anything. 2) Because, maybe, it wasn't as important? None of the other male stuff was found either. 3) You have a point here. The point is erased by a) The fact that out of all of the stuff i listed, philosophy was and is the LEAST important (yes, including art). b) The fact that you STILL have not proven what you said - that women given the opportunity back then did shit. You say we have no evidence - that the writings we have are spotty. Why, then, should we leap to the conclusion that everyone was contributing equally? Philosophy? The last bastion of misogyny? I'm still laughing at that one. Increasing female graduate students is politically correct and very nice and liberal and 'fair'. Do you know what affirmative action is? It's placing minorities with inferior accomplishments at the same level as other students. It's not because they HAVE ability. It's because it's mandated by the government. You're making absurd logical leaps. What I'm saying is we have absolutely no way of knowing whether your assertion - that women contributed nothing of note in ancient Athens - is correct. This is because we have spotty evidence for any assertion about this sort of subject. I am not, on the basis of this, concluding that women were major contributors. What I am concluding is that on the basis of the last 40 years of philosophy, women are major contributors. This, interestingly, lines up with around the time we let them start contributing. I also like the part where you dismiss evidence you don't like as irrelevant. You brought up ancient philosophy. I wouldn't be here if you didn't... Also, I suspect I know more about the state of academic phil than you do, but hey, feel free to dismiss my claim (that is common among people who work in the field) that academic philosophy is misogynistic. PS. I'm done. This goes beyond useful argument. Show nested quote +I know that you want to show how great your knowledge of a fairly useless subject is... Condescension from the position of admittedly knowing almost nothing about the subject is my absolute favourite flavour.
You're making absurd logical leaps. What I'm saying is we have absolutely no way of knowing whether your assertion - that women contributed nothing of note in ancient Athens - is correct. This is because we have spotty evidence for any assertion about this sort of subject. I am not, on the basis of this, concluding that women were major contributors.
Ok. We'll drop that then. My proof for my argument was that every notable Greek philosopher was a man, but you're right in that there were very few.
What I am concluding is that on the basis of the last 40 years of philosophy, women are major contributors. This, interestingly, lines up with around the time we let them start contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century
Show me.
Out of the first 10, 1 is female. 10%. Supports my point, not yours buddy.
Out of the second 10, 1 is female. 10% Supports my point, not yours buddy.
Out of the third 10, 2 are female. 20%. Supports my point, not yours buddy.
(In case you were wondering, I literally went down the list alphabetically here).
Even in modern philosophy, the grand majority of notable contributors are male. Even when women are given the chance, they (out of a sample size of thirty) only demonstrate relative excellence 13% of the time.
I also like the part where you dismiss evidence you don't like as irrelevant. You brought up ancient philosophy. I wouldn't be here if you didn't...
I'm dismissing philosophy itself as relatively irrelevant. Are you going to argue that Plato is worth more than Mendel? Considering that philosophy is INHERENTLY a field where everyone disagrees (every different guy has a different take) it is naturally a field which isn't steadily or objectively contributing to the human race. Physicists, biologists, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and economists have, however. And at least artists don't contradict everyone else in the field every time they publish a new work. Music is the universal language. Philosophy is a dick-measuring contest where nobody is tangibly correct.
Also, I suspect I know more about the state of academic phil than you do, but hey, feel free to dismiss my claim (that is common among people who work in the field) that academic philosophy is misogynistic.
Not dismissing your claim. But you're trying to imply that phil is more imbalanced than engineering or astrophysics or math or neurology or business? You need to visit an IIT, friend.
Condescension from the position of admittedly knowing almost nothing about the subject is my absolute favourite flavour.
After three semesters of philosophy classes, the only thing I know for sure about the subject is that everyone has a different outlook and nobody has overwhelmingly convincing evidence. When you have people saying society sucks and we should all run around naked and play fucky fucky being rewarded with summa cum laudes, you know something's wrong. 90% of philosophy is implausible, unimplementable, and ridiculous.
The other 10% has no bearing on my life.
Bai!
|
Men aren't as good at raising kids? Women are *naturally* better at cooking and cleaning, and so it makes sense that they should do it? What are you basing this on? I would seriously LOVE to hear any factual basis for why women would be more naturally apt at *cleaning*.
On a completely unrelated note pertaining to hunter-gatherer societies, the meat men brought back accounted for roughly 15-20% of the caloric intake of the band. The vast majority of food eaten by the band would be provided by the women's labour, in addition to taking care of and raising the children.
Again I feel that you are *completely* ignoring socialization and its effect on gender roles. We aren't raised the same as men. Feel free to address anything in my previous post on page 5.
Take a look at some images from popular cultures from as recent as 50 years ago. Images and messages like this permeated *every* aspect of society for generations and generations. When my mother was little, teachers used to tell all the girls in class to make sure they were wearing fresh underwear every day in case they had to go to the doctor, (because periods are gross and you should be immaculate every day). There was an old woman in my neighborhood growing up whom lived to be almost 100. I used to do housework for her because she was all old and such, and we talked about a lot. Her husband used to beat her when she was my age, (and this was socially acceptable at the time), and forbade her from ever learning to drive. Watch some old 50's TV shows. Lucy and Ethel routinely get out of shenanigans by saying "My husband is Ricky Ricardo!" In one episode, the police even call Ricky to ask him if he's aware that his wife is out in the city by herself. This is the kind of shit that used to permeate every aspect of our society. How can you say the women who grew up in such a culture are going to accomplish the same as men? Men are told to reach for the stars from the day they're born. 40 years ago, young girls would be told that their options in life were limited to actress, model, nurse, or housewife. Take a look at some of this stuff:
+ Show Spoiler +
And a quick google search will find thousands more pictures like this. This used to be pop-culture reality.
Generations and generations of women are taught from a very early age that their place is in the kitchen/bedroom, and that their most important attribute is their appearance. Now I understand that your point is that this is *because* we are naturally inferior at the important things in life, but my point is that many of us were never given a chance.
Even today pressures to get married and have kids cause many women to reconsider higher education. Social stigma against single women still exists. I honestly feel you're completely ignorant of the realities of life for many women 50 years ago, and thousands of years ago. Consensual marriage and sex is a relatively modern invention. Before the advent of affordable and accessible birth control, women had very little control over their reproductive lives.
Are men really simply "worse" at raising kids? Or has this simply been repeated over and over in pop culture, commercials, and sitcoms so many times that you believe it?
|
On November 20 2011 05:55 Haemonculus wrote:Men aren't as good at raising kids? Women are *naturally* better at cooking and cleaning, and so it makes sense that they should do it? What are you basing this on? I would seriously LOVE to hear any factual basis for why women would be more naturally apt at *cleaning*. On a completely unrelated note pertaining to hunter-gatherer societies, the meat men brought back accounted for roughly 15-20% of the caloric intake of the band. The vast majority of food eaten by the band would be provided by the women's labour, in addition to taking care of and raising the children. Again I feel that you are *completely* ignoring socialization and its effect on gender roles. We aren't raised the same as men. Feel free to address anything in my previous post on page 5. Take a look at some images from popular cultures from as recent as 50 years ago. Images and messages like this permeated *every* aspect of society for generations and generations. When my mother was little, teachers used to tell all the girls in class to make sure they were wearing fresh underwear every day in case they had to go to the doctor, (because periods are gross and you should be immaculate every day). There was an old woman in my neighborhood growing up whom lived to be almost 100. I used to do housework for her because she was all old and such, and we talked about a lot. Her husband used to beat her when she was my age, (and this was socially acceptable at the time), and forbade her from ever learning to drive. Watch some old 50's TV shows. Lucy and Ethel routinely get out of shenanigans by saying "My husband is Ricky Ricardo!" In one episode, the police even call Ricky to ask him if he's aware that his wife is out in the city by herself. This is the kind of shit that used to permeate every aspect of our society. How can you say the women who grew up in such a culture are going to accomplish the same as men? Men are told to reach for the stars from the day they're born. 40 years ago, young girls would be told that their options in life were limited to actress, model, nurse, or housewife. Take a look at some of this stuff: + Show Spoiler +And a quick google search will find thousands more pictures like this. This used to be pop-culture reality. Generations and generations of women are taught from a very early age that their place is in the kitchen/bedroom, and that their most important attribute is their appearance. Now I understand that your point is that this is *because* we are naturally inferior at the important things in life, but my point is that many of us were never given a chance. Even today pressures to get married and have kids cause many women to reconsider higher education. Social stigma against single women still exists. I honestly feel you're completely ignorant of the realities of life for many women 50 years ago, and thousands of years ago. Consensual marriage and sex is a relatively modern invention. Before the advent of affordable and accessible birth control, women had very little control over their reproductive lives. Are men really simply "worse" at raising kids? Or has this simply been repeated over and over in pop culture, commercials, and sitcoms so many times that you believe it?
Haha, those pictures were pretty funny!
(I'm also done with this conversation, I'm not taking anymore risks and it seems nobody will consider an opinion that isn't completely correlative to what they taught was the "correct" way to think about people before spewing nonsensical profanity at it).
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove; pop culture is a reflection of current societal values which reinforce said values. Maybe it's a vicious cycle, but we didn't get battleship covers from aliens or anything. Whatevs yo, nobody in 6 pages has refuted any of my arguments save one nitpicky philosophy guy who brought one point to somewhat of a stalemate. I'm bored explaining the same things over and over and getting the same, nonresponsive 'rebuttals'.
|
United States22883 Posts
He's got a weighted GPA, therefore stupid high schooler? This is one of those cases where ad hominem attacks are more suitable than trying to explain to a moron why they're moronic. Some opinions aren't worth respecting. Complete trash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.kenlaws.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/30-girls-cant-play-battleship.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://planetoddity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/vintage-women-ads-11.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sarahwilson.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/vintage-pants-trouser-ad-from-the-7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a96674_WivesAreFor.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Vintage-Sexist-Ads.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.ilovestickyrice.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/vintage-women-ads-4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/vintageads9.jpg)
