|
Before I start this rant I would like to state that I am NOT sexist, this is a post to let off some steam about feminists being extremely annoying sometimes
After school today I went to a bus stop where I saw a minibus with this...thing painted on the back: "Deprimerte kvinner shopper eller spiser, mens deprimerte menn erobrer landområder. Det er en helt forskjellig måte å tenke på!"
which basicly translates into: "Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
(Keep in mind this is not a direct quote, but it was something like that)
Now, WTF is that all about? I thought some women wanted equality and they bring up this kind of shit? Reminds me of Susanne Bratli (Ap/Labour party) who wanted to restrict young men from driving in the dark, have a passenger and she wanted to install alcohol and speed-locks on all cars. Just young men, as if all young men are the reason to all the accidents, and nothing was mentioned about some of those stupid ass ladies who text/put on make-up while driving!
Some feminists even say that in every major corporations administration there has to be an equal amount of men and women, which is retarded IMO. The position as board member (or whatever it's called) should NOT and I repeat NOT be given just because they happen to be male/female, it should be based upon skill and determination (IE it should be because they deserved it, not because they are X gender)
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.
I think that about sums it up for my rage, if you are a woman/girl reading this please don't be offended as I tried as best as I could not to generalize you, I know there's alot of good female drivers and board members. I love women/girls and probably couldn't live without them and I also want equality, but what I've written about above is NOT equality.
<3 You
PS Don't whine if the title doesn't entirely represent my text, there's no way for me to change the title anyway. -(Fe)male == Female/male, it is the way I meant it atleast. -All of the "some" are added because of bitching about me generalizing when some people didn't bother to read the entire post. -Deleted a rather stupid statement
|
Nowadays, gender-based discrimination goes both ways - and unless we fight, we will lose.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
I sorta see what you mean. My favourites are the car insurance companies for women. God forbid if someone made one just for men; that person would get lynched.
And I'm with Optical. Discrimination goes both ways, and political correctness comes to the point where those who feel they are being held back are the ones with the power, since people are so worried with their stand that they conform quickly.
Though I guess mutual discrimination does indicate a form of equality. I just hope people realise that the retaliations are caused BECAUSE of these movements that the indicated champions advocated
|
United States22883 Posts
Young men are the least safe demographic of driver.
But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker.
You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you.
|
You do realize women consist of roughly 50% of the world's human population right? there is no way you can claim "they" want anything, so you are annoyed by feminists because some women say stupid stuff... U're a fucking idiot.+ Show Spoiler +men that are for gender equality annoy me. How come men claim they are non-sexist and then say stuff like this???
|
I lived through a Gender Studies class at my school's Women's Studies department.
That was a harrowing experience for me.
|
I think it's fair for insurance companies to give lower rates to female drivers. But then you also have to be consistent in other areas. When comparing two identical candidates for a job (except for their gender) it seems to be reasonably logical to give the woman a lower wage, or hire the man, because of the chance that she may go on maternity leave.
|
Agree with the sentiment of your rant with one caveat: I think it is important that corporations hire at least a certain percentage of each gender because I firm which has no female employees is a firm which is likely discriminating. This is not true in every case however, for example women might not be interested in trading and the few women who do apply might do a poor job. Conversely, men might not be as interested in running a daycare and some of the few who do apply might be pedophiles. It is important to record how many of each gender apply and how many are hired.
The consideration that young men are the least safe demographic of driver is called "statistical discrimination" and shouldn't be confused with racial/gender/etc. discrimination as we know it. I do consider that young people are typically less safe than experience drivers and it wouldn't be a stretch to have the same safety mechanisms added to the cars of all young drivers.
As far as the examples you chose, I think they are all poor. Statistical discrimination is very important to how our society functions. I don't think that in the current corporate climate that there is any cause to not have female representation in every firm. Some firms will have a higher percentage than others, but not all will be 50/50.
I took a course on gender discrimination in economics and I don't think that the entire income gap between males and females has been accounted for. I think we should wait until that gap has closed before we say that they can't have 50% representation in a firm.
|
And I must say it's stupid how women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation.
??? Do you have any proof of this?
0/5
|
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote:Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you. This has already been discussed in another thread so I'll link you to that. And if you didn't notice (or maybe I didn't write it, sorry) that this law was meant for young males only. If that doesn't sound wrong how about a law that forbids black people to go outside at night, because statisticaly most crimes at night are commited by black people. Statistics is not something you make a law out of, IMO.
On November 19 2011 00:27 nttea wrote:You do realize women consist of roughly 50% of the world's human population right? there is no way you can claim "they" want anything, so you are annoyed by feminists because some women say stupid stuff... U're a fucking idiot. + Show Spoiler +men that are for gender equality annoy me. How come men claim they are non-sexist and then say stuff like this??? I'm annoyed by extremists (in this case, extreme feminists) yes, is that something that should be conisdered bad? And I'm not saying "they" want anything, I'm just saying that SOME (IE extreme feminists) women are just idiots. Liked how you said "U're", because of the internet slang + grammar. And please notice at the bottom of the post I say that I probably couldn't live without women, and that I support equlity between men and women, but if it's supposed to be equal it can't differentiate(is this even a word?) between young males and young females in this law.
EDIT
On November 19 2011 00:47 mrafaeldie12 wrote:Show nested quote +And I must say it's stupid how women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. ??? Do you have any proof of this? 0/5 Google "falsely accused of rape" and enjoy ?
@Fuhrmaaj I didn't mean to imply that women are incapable of handling a high ranking position, I'm just saying that these positions should be given to those who have earned them, not because they are male/female.
|
On November 19 2011 00:47 mrafaeldie12 wrote:Show nested quote +And I must say it's stupid how women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. ??? Do you have any proof of this? 0/5
That French IMF guy rite?
|
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote:Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you.
I'm not sure if these studies take into account whether or not men drive more than women on average. From the insurance companies point of view, it's fairly irrelevent since insurance doesn't cost more or less if you drive more or less. However, for blanket claims that men are on average more unsafe drivers than females, it's very important.
|
You frown upon generalizations, yet you are guilty of it in your post..
|
On November 19 2011 00:42 Fuhrmaaj wrote: Agree with the sentiment of your rant with one caveat: I think it is important that corporations hire at least a certain percentage of each gender because I firm which has no female employees is a firm which is likely discriminating. This is not true in every case however, for example women might not be interested in trading and the few women who do apply might do a poor job. Conversely, men might not be as interested in running a daycare and the few who do apply might be pedophiles. It is important to record how many of each gender apply and how many are hired. Are you honestly kidding me? Just because you are a man who is interested in working with small children does not mean you are a pedophile. That is fucking ridiculous I just don't know what to say. Not to mention you are implying that there aren't any female pedophiles which goes right back to the OP: People seem to automatically assume that only men are pedophiles, at least unconsciously, e.x. gender discrimination tilted in favor of women.
|
I know I generalized in the post, but for fucks sake can't people read the bottom of the post? But OK, I'll redo.
|
Today's "real" feminists don't want equality, they want more power for women, in ways that in the long run will destroy civilization.
Also - equality isn't natural, men and women are very different.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Though your execution is absolutely horrible, some parts have some merit.
To completely punish a demographic with draconian laws on the reckless actions of those in that demographic is misguided and it wouldn't solve the problem. People will flout the law irregardless. It would only punish those that were most likely law abiding in the first place.
False accusations of rape do occur and society nowadays do take on the adage of 'guilty before proven innocent' which can ruin that person's reputation. Rape can also go unpunished, which is sad, but the system isn't perfect.
The administration board having a perfect 50/50 ratio is stupid as well. The person should be voted in on merit. I see female CEO's as well, i'm sure there's some sort of conspiracy against women to prevent them from taking high paying jobs from males! Oh no!
|
On November 19 2011 01:08 achristes wrote: I know I generalized in the post, but for fucks sake can't people read the bottom of the post? But OK, I'll redo.
dont worry about it there are always people who cant argue and thus have to rely on screaming "that's a generalisation blabla" as if that was an argument or not allready clear.
|
On November 19 2011 01:16 FractalsOnFire wrote: Though your execution is absolutely horrible, some parts have some merit.
I was waiting for something like that, and if it helps to have an excuse... + Show Spoiler +Because I'm 16, English is not my native language AND I suck at explaining
I get what you mean though ^^
|
United States22883 Posts
Adding at the end of your post that you didn't mean to be an idiot doesn't excuse your idiocy in the rest of the post.
Hiring by merit already occurs. In cases with near equal candidates, diversity is an added benefit because it often improves organizations. And it goes both ways. People who complain that women only make 76% of a men's salaries are wrong too. Controlled by merit/experience/education/etc., in most fields and sub-fields they make the same.
Of course the driving law was stupid, but the subsequent post complaining about insurance premiums was completely off base. The rest of your OP is just gibberish based on non-evidence and sweeping generalizations about a type of people and their belief. I have never seen a business person or academic or anything claim that boards should be divided up equally by sex. I have no idea where you even got that from.
|
Calgary25940 Posts
I don't even want to touch this because it's so absurd, so I will summarize with this:
When you write something, make sure it's true and not just your baseless opinion.
|
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that?
There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word.
If you're not consistent then you're a hypocrite.
|
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote:Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you.
Of course young men drivers are more reckless in the traffic just as immigrants from the middle east are more prone to rape and other violent crimes that doesn't make it ok to judge them differently just because of that. If you are supposed to be equal in one area you have to be equal in all areas otherwise you would be worse than hitler
Bottomline is that males and females should be treated equal just as immigrants and natives should be just as straight and homosexual people should be
|
On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that?
There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word.
If you're not consistent then you're a hypocrite.
Well, of course you can say that blacks commit more crimes and women excel less at math...however, you need to present a sociological explanation for this or get ostracized. There is no such requirement for any negative statement for white males, of course, because according to the enlightened ones white males are always advantaged by society, never disadvantaged, thus of course any negative characteristic displayed by them is simply their own vice coming to display.
(No, I'm not bitter from taking some gender studies classes from horribly bigoted professors...not at all!)
|
On November 19 2011 01:18 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 01:08 achristes wrote: I know I generalized in the post, but for fucks sake can't people read the bottom of the post? But OK, I'll redo. dont worry about it there are always people who cant argue and thus have to rely on screaming "that's a generalisation blabla" as if that was an argument or not allready clear.
Yeah, I can't argue because I immediately point out the blatant hypocrisy. More like I don't need to argue because the OP lacks credible examples and above average reasoning.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person.
The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation.
The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels.
There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life.
|
On November 19 2011 01:20 Jibba wrote:Hiring by merit already occurs. In cases with near equal candidates, diversity is an added benefit because it often improves organizations. And it goes both ways. People who complain that women only make 76% of a men's salaries are wrong too. Controlled by merit/experience/education/etc., in most fields and sub-fields they make the same. I believe he was referring to the Norwegian law that requires any company in which the government owns more than 2/3 of the shares, as well as any corporation (no matter who owns it or parts of it) to have a minimum of 40% women on the board of directors.
Source (in Norwegian): http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/nhd/pressesenter/fakta-ark/fakta-ark-kjonnskvotering-i-styrer.html?id=641431
|
Edit: There has to be a minimum of 40% of each gender on the boards of directors, but in most cases this has led to companies having to turn down potential male candidates who might be more qualified than women who in the end get the jobs.
Edit #2: Sorry, must have clicked "quote" instead of "edit", my bad!
|
On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. Show nested quote +There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life.
So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote: Before I start this rant I would like to state that I am NOT sexist, this is a post to let off some steam about feminists being extremely annoying sometimes
After school today I went to a bus stop where I saw a minibus with this...thing painted on the back: "Deprimerte kvinner shopper eller spiser, mens deprimerte menn erobrer landområder. Det er en helt forskjellig måte å tenke på!"
which basicly translates into: "Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
(Keep in mind this is not a direct quote, but it was something like that)
Now, WTF is that all about? I thought some women wanted equality and they bring up this kind of shit? Reminds me of Susanne Bratli (Ap/Labour party) who wanted to restrict young men from driving in the dark, have a passenger and she wanted to install alcohol and speed-locks on all cars. Just young men, as if all young men are the reason to all the accidents, and nothing was mentioned about some of those stupid ass ladies who text/put on make-up while driving!
And I must say it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. Some feminists even say that in every major corporations administration there has to be an equal amount of men and women, which is retarded IMO. The position as board member (or whatever it's called) should NOT and I repeat NOT be given just because they happen to be male/female, it should be based upon skill and determination (IE it should be because they deserved it, not because they are X gender)
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.
I think that about sums it up for my rage, if you are a woman/girl reading this please don't be offended as I tried as best as I could not to generalize you, I know there's alot of good female drivers and board members. I love women/girls and probably couldn't live without them and I also want equality, but what I've written about above is NOT equality.
<3 You
PS Don't whine if the title doesn't entirely represent my text, there's no way for me to change the title anyway. (Fe)male == Female/male, it is the way I meant it atleast. All of the "some" are added because of bitching about me generalizing when some people didn't bother to read the entire post.
I think you should qualify the way you use "feminism". Feminism is just advocacy for female equality. If you support female equality, regardless of how you feel about the specific efforts of those trying to achieve it, you support feminism. I agree that some feminists may use dubious strategies, or may have goals with which I do not entirely agree, but one should not use a single feminist or group of feminists as a way to characterize the entire ideology.
While reputation-wrecking is a serious and unfortunate thing, but so is being raped. The nature of the crime does, in principle, make it easy to (falsely) accuse people, but you write as if it is some conspiracy by womankind as a whole to undermine men. Women (and men) need to be able to come out and accuse those who have hurt them. Incidentally, you must realize when women publicly accuse their attackers they frequently also face significant humiliating (and possibly reputation-wrecking?) publicity as the process moves forward.
Further, the statistics on male drivers are real. While I do not support all of the provisions in the proposal you referenced (wasn't there something about not being allowed to drive at night?), if you support rational litigation/policy making, then you must understand the sense in accounting for these statistics.
With all that said, "reverse sexism" obviously can exist, but even when we perceive it in action we shouldn't immediately regress and feel negatively toward women and/or feminists in general.
As to the guy who said "real feminists want power" - what? Please defend your statement thoroughly. How are you defining "real feminists"? People who make the most noise or...? Frankly your claim sounds absurd.
|
In my honest opinion, should women want what they regard as 'equality', they should be able to give up their victim status in various matters — If a man commits suicide, he is thought as someone who failed to succeed in their life, whereas when a woman commits suicide, the blame is on the surrounding environment and a society that supposedly puts too much pressure on a woman. Hence, the sympathy scores for them, and they don't want to lose that position.
In my home country, 80% of those who commit suicide are male, and around the same number of homeless are male too. Imagine if the numbers were reversed, now we would suddenly have an influx of support from various agencies, and a 'proof' that the society discriminates women. Now let's not even talk about the disputes about choosing the home for a child in a case of divorce — In a huge majority of cases the woman gets to keep the kids regardless of the children's opinions, even when it is obvious that the loyal father would keep better care. I have witnessed such a case myself, where the woman afterwards simply used the kids to manipulate the ex-husband's emotional life further on.
Men who also bring up these topics and perspectives are seen as cynical; Women expect men to silently accept this kind of bliss ignorance about the other side of the coin, and whoever might point these statistical imbalances out, instead of receiving legitimate replies, will be met with despise and accusations of being weak and not being able to 'man and suck it up'.
End of rant. I'm afraid to talk about these issues in real life again due to the high chance of getting bombarded with strawmen and out-of-topic ad hominem arguments.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans.
|
There sure are an insane ammount of collectivists on TL.
|
A similar concept- "Terran wins more games than Zerg and Protoss so they are basically OP" leads to much widespread hilarity.
Don't generalize when making arguments kids or this blog may happen TO YOU!
|
On November 19 2011 02:44 Probe1 wrote: A similar concept- "Terran wins more games than Zerg and Protoss so they are basically OP" leads to much widespread hilarity.
Don't generalize when making arguments kids or this blog may happen TO YOU! Isn't winning more games than other races the strongest possible indicator of being overpowered? What evidence is stronger?
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm on my terrible phone so my research is not very thorough but here's a couple of quick links aabout the height thing. If I tried to open a PDF, my phone would probably catch on fire.
wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_black_people_taller_than_whites_on_average
m.wisegeek.com/which-country-has-the-tallest-people.htm
|
On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans.
The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice.
|
On November 19 2011 01:07 Geovu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 00:42 Fuhrmaaj wrote: Agree with the sentiment of your rant with one caveat: I think it is important that corporations hire at least a certain percentage of each gender because I firm which has no female employees is a firm which is likely discriminating. This is not true in every case however, for example women might not be interested in trading and the few women who do apply might do a poor job. Conversely, men might not be as interested in running a daycare and the few who do apply might be pedophiles. It is important to record how many of each gender apply and how many are hired. Are you honestly kidding me? Just because you are a man who is interested in working with small children does not mean you are a pedophile. That is fucking ridiculous I just don't know what to say. Not to mention you are implying that there aren't any female pedophiles which goes right back to the OP: People seem to automatically assume that only men are pedophiles, at least unconsciously, e.x. gender discrimination tilted in favor of women.
Hey, you're right and I edited my post to reflect that. What I was trying to say was the men are not as interested as women to work at a daycare and some portion of those who do may be pedophiles. I don't want to assign numbers to anything, but I think it is important to be aware of the possibility. By the same token, some amount of women who apply may be pedophiles but they apply from a larger gender pool and are not as likely to be hired except by merit. I don't think that men should be hired purely because they are men because there is a risk involved with how they may perform in their role
On November 19 2011 01:20 Jibba wrote: And it goes both ways. People who complain that women only make 76% of a men's salaries are wrong too. Controlled by merit/experience/education/etc., in most fields and sub-fields they make the same.
I have taken an economics course on this subject and I found that this was not exactly the case. A woman who has a child earlier in her career will lose some income because this is also a period where firms are more likely to train an employee into a higher paid role. So this accounts for some of the income gap, but it is possible to model how much of this gap is due to merit/experience/education/etc. and there is still something left over.
I can't comment on the reason for the disparity outside of Canada, but in Canada women are more willing (or likely) to take a lower paid position if there is some kind of community benefit. For example, Canadian women may opt to work for shelters, daycares, or veterinarians. I'm not sure how this is reflected on the male side (I wasn't interested when I was taking the course tbh), but if the men took a job at a restaurant or call center then they may earn more. Another factor is the unemployed are NOT REPRESENTED by income gaps, so an unemployed male where a women is working a job for below average pay will actually skew income gaps into the male's favour.
The last factor is that men and women have different preferences in which type of high education they pursue. If you've taken an undergraduate engineering course, there are a lot more men than women. Whereas in undergraduate biology/nursing, there are a lot more women than men. An engineering position tends to pay more than a nursing job at equal education.
After all these variables are accounted for, there is still some gap which is not accounted for. As I said, we focused on Canada in my course because I'm Canadian but there is an analogy in the States (which I understand has a greater income gap to account for). Consider the following chart from 2007: http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Earnings&ContentRecord_id=db19df76-9299-4b46-a98c-ef33c21dab3d&ContentType_id=2206321f-9e59-4f98-b972-d78c64abf642&Group_id=51e071bd-07e9-46f2-bb70-cfc28baec8be
In economics, Explained accounts for things such as difference in education, experience and child rearing (women may take materal leave, which reduces opportunity for advancement). The current opinions on Unexplained are preference or bias. To isolate for preference, you can look at a single firm or industry and compare the wages withing while accounting for Explained (as above). Some economists will have already done this. But this chart is for the federal workforce which is very broad, and as such likely does not account for preference. So the remaining 7 cents on the dollar may be a combination of preference and bias, or something which modern economists have not considered.
Food for thought.
|
I mean its been said but.. just saying your not sexist doesn't make you not sexist. Also on the definition of sexism; In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years.
|
Well, it's true that men control some areas, but seriously, isn't it also sexism, if a job is given to a woman instead of a man, just to add so called "equality" between genders, it's just ridiculous. I've heard of people (through my friends) losing their jobs because the company wanted to hire women instead in order to not look sexist in the eyes of their customers.
|
On November 19 2011 02:48 Jibba wrote: I'm on my terrible phone so my research is not very thorough but here's a couple of quick links aabout the height thing. If I tried to open a PDF, my phone would probably catch on fire.
wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_black_people_taller_than_whites_on_average
m.wisegeek.com/which-country-has-the-tallest-people.htm
Either they are all equal or it is a fact that some are taller than others. Whether I am right about which are taller than which is less relevant than the fact that some are taller than others.
I'm sure we could argue about this for days, but my point is that I'm fairly confident that if I we were talking about intelligence instead of height at least a few people would have called me a racist by now for being open to the idea that some cultures and smarter than others.
|
On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote: Before I start this rant I would like to state that I am NOT sexist, this is a post to let off some steam about feminists being extremely annoying sometimes
After school today I went to a bus stop where I saw a minibus with this...thing painted on the back: "Deprimerte kvinner shopper eller spiser, mens deprimerte menn erobrer landområder. Det er en helt forskjellig måte å tenke på!"
which basicly translates into: "Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
(Keep in mind this is not a direct quote, but it was something like that)
Now, WTF is that all about? I thought some women wanted equality and they bring up this kind of shit? Reminds me of Susanne Bratli (Ap/Labour party) who wanted to restrict young men from driving in the dark, have a passenger and she wanted to install alcohol and speed-locks on all cars. Just young men, as if all young men are the reason to all the accidents, and nothing was mentioned about some of those stupid ass ladies who text/put on make-up while driving!
And I must say it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. Some feminists even say that in every major corporations administration there has to be an equal amount of men and women, which is retarded IMO. The position as board member (or whatever it's called) should NOT and I repeat NOT be given just because they happen to be male/female, it should be based upon skill and determination (IE it should be because they deserved it, not because they are X gender)
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.
I think that about sums it up for my rage, if you are a woman/girl reading this please don't be offended as I tried as best as I could not to generalize you, I know there's alot of good female drivers and board members. I love women/girls and probably couldn't live without them and I also want equality, but what I've written about above is NOT equality.
<3 You
PS Don't whine if the title doesn't entirely represent my text, there's no way for me to change the title anyway. (Fe)male == Female/male, it is the way I meant it atleast. All of the "some" are added because of bitching about me generalizing when some people didn't bother to read the entire post.
I'm a programmer. Whilst studying at uni there were 3 girls on my course of 250 people. In 12 years since i have only worked with one girl who could write sql. I love working with women because they often do have a subtely different approach to problems in general. Recently found out that historically a lot of programmers were female ... not anymore. Since then programming has become the realm of the geek. Some people have suggested it was because companies started to make them work from home (this is in 70's and 80's) which meant being in the house etc and numbers declined then the image of the programmer changed. Now programmers like to be called software engineers because the idea of a programmer is a drone inputting someone elses requirements (none of this freestyle untestable php/js shit).
You have missed the pint of the add ... its worse than you think imo. They are aiming to *create* the distinction between men and women as its a marketing tool to identify yourself with something as opposed to something else.
Is is possible for a black dude to be racist? Then yeah its possible for a woman to be sexist, its just that noone would know as noone listens to em anyway ;p
BTW most of the problems of gender equality have really gone now (in uk anyway) imo - when i visit italy for instance i can see that attitudes are very different - but that is true from both sides, they have a different dance (and i cant comment on equality there as i really have no idea how they think or work). I Keep getting into arguments with the missus. Things like equal pay ... well women actually aspire to less and demand less pay which is why they are paid less (ie they pre persecute themselves) ... then you look at the doled up tarts on a saturday night that clearly like the differences ... Eg my missus refuses to ask for a pay rise. I keep telling her to man up or shut up about feminism and gender inequality and get me a beer.
The real problem i find is that women can do whatever the fuck they want but men cant do girly things. Eg staying at home to raise the kids is hard work if your a guy. Everything is geared up for women ... then you have all their stupid overblown fear of pervs (esp when kids are around).
They don't want equality, they wan the choice to throw it away if they want. What they don't realise is that they have already done that. If there wasn't equality these 'feminists' wouldn't be able to be as vocal as they are. What they don't realise is that most are trying to live up to real feminists that did do courageous things because they feel inferior to them. They should because they will never be bale to make the noise they did as situations have changed massively. Yes, im saying its vagina envy ... or put another way just another vitrolic outlet.
Besides I dont want to treat women like men. They wouldn't like that.
As for the some cultures being smarter than others well you ahve no way to measure that. What you are measuring is a cultures intelligence as a function of their place in society. When you look at statistics in america for IQ's the difference between white and black is shocking. But then you have the figure out what was actually measured. All those figures really show is how badly black americans are educated - and that to me is depressing. I can guarantee you that if you gave me an IQ test now I could increase my score within 2 months by training. That would show they are a function of knowledge and practise at a specific set of skills. It is unfair to give a tribal culture an IQ test for instance. It is unfair to present an IQ test in a foreign language. IQ is nonsense. Over there the phrase 'wrong side of the tracks' is visibly true - I don't notice the effects of segregation in the uk ... in the south of the states it is still really obvious and why race discrimination is such a problem. In UK i dont think people have a clue what a real race problem is.
I would say the height thing is similar to what i just said about IQ also - but to a degree that requires a *lot* more time. If you look at english peoples heights over the years they change massivley due to plague etc. So height is not a function of race, its a function of social/cultural evolution
Do races have differences ... YES. Just look at them damn it. End of argument. If that makes me a racist it makes you a moron. Does that mean you can infer to the individual? Not really because variance inside each gene pool is probably many factors higher in deciding specific 'stats' of people. Also at the end of the day we have interbred so many many times we are all basically the same and probably have only 2-3 groups as ancestors.
|
On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years.
No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones.
|
On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote: it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities.
The only thing that's stupid here is your reasoning.
You obviously haven't been in contact with the world of careerism or you'd know that coming forth as a victim is career suicide #1.
Oh and you know another annoying thing?
"it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities."
"it's stupid how some young boys can just accuse their priest of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/job possibilities."
"it's stupid how some children can just accuse their parent(s) of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/home."
^ See the pattern? It's so obvious that it's a good thing to have a system where such accusations carry weight, especially with the burden placed on the victim that comes forth. It's so obvious it's embarrassing to have to point out.
This is about as connected with the real world as the "bitches who steal a mans semen and shove it into themselves to get pregnant"-thread.
|
@Thrill Yeah, I can see that it sounds kind of stupid :S
***Editing***
|
On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones.
Cultures are genetically based.
|
On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based.
I hope this is a joke.
|
On November 19 2011 03:45 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based. I hope this is a joke.
If so, it's not even a funny one : /
|
On November 19 2011 03:31 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote: it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. The only thing that's stupid here is your reasoning. You obviously haven't been in contact with the world of careerism or you'd know that coming forth as a victim is career suicide #1. Oh and you know another annoying thing? "it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities." "it's stupid how some young boys can just accuse their priest of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/job possibilities." "it's stupid how some children can just accuse their parent(s) of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/home." ^ See the pattern? It's so obvious that it's a good thing to have a system where such accusations carry weight, especially with the burden placed on the victim that comes forth. It's so obvious it's embarrassing to have to point out. This is about as connected with the real world as the "bitches who steal a mans semen and shove it into themselves to get pregnant"-thread. A friend of mine who's a police officer recently told me how extremely common it is (in Norway) for women to falsely accuse men of raping them. Even though they in most cases discover the truth, the guys' reputations are almost always destroyed in the process. This has, however nothing to do with gender equality, and it's very sad to see that police resources are wasted on investigating false reports when there is a big problem with actual rapes in Oslo these days.
Of course it's a good thing to have a system where accusations of this nature carries weight, but people rarely if ever seem to consider how false accusations hurt both the people being wrongly accused, and especially the people who actually are raped, molested etc. and later experience doubt from the police as to whether or not the rape actually took place.
|
On November 19 2011 03:29 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years. No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex.
I dont think you understand the problem if you think that.
The point is that society IS a patriacal society. Women give birth, are soft cuddly creatures that men cherish. Men are the meat eaters that generally put food on the table and dont like wussy things like knitting.
Nobody thinks really buff women are attractive (and im not talking about tom boys).
I could go on and on and on ... Its really deep cultural embedding.
This is why i just said i don't think UK understands race problems. Calling a black guy a nigger aitn a very nice thing to do but if you think that's what racism is about you have missed the point. When you look at countries that have real racism it means that you are literally fucked if you get born into the wrong race or caste. Its about society systematically (whether they know it or not) trating some group differently to the point that ****nobody notices anymore because it is normal****. You cannot see it or know it if you live in it unless something jolts you out of your usual habits.
Imagine the daily life of a man and women in an amazonian tribe. You will have a lot of trouble with the details of who does what and it will probably have more in common with your life then theirs (and there is nothing wrong with that because how can you make something up without depending on your experiences and preconceptions?).
So no if you did wha tyou say your being a dick, and you are being sexist or whatever ... but for it to be a real problem it has to be part of business as usual in a society. Its like slavery ... some slaves are probably very happy with their lives. So who are you to say slavery is wrong?
|
[B]On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote:
"Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
I guess they forgot about Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, Joan of Arc, etc.
|
Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here?
|
On November 19 2011 03:51 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:29 Fission wrote:On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years. No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex. I dont think you understand the problem if you think that. The point is that society IS a patriacal society. Women give birth, are soft cuddly creatures that men cherish. Men are the meat eaters that generally put food on the table and dont like wussy things like knitting. Nobody thinks really buff women are attractive (and im not talking about tom boys). I could go on and on and on ... Its really deep cultural embedding. This is why i just said i don't think UK understands race problems. Calling a black guy a nigger aitn a very nice thing to do but if you think that's what racism is about you have missed the point. When you look at countries that have real racism it means that you are literally fucked if you get born into the wrong race or caste. Its about society systematically (whether they know it or not) trating some group differently to the point that ****nobody notices anymore because it is normal****. You cannot see it or know it if you live in it unless something jolts you out of your usual habits. Imagine the daily life of a man and women in an amazonian tribe. You will have a lot of trouble with the details of who does what and it will probably have more in common with your life then theirs (and there is nothing wrong with that because how can you make something up without depending on your experiences and preconceptions?). So no if you did wha tyou say your being a dick, and you are being sexist or whatever ... but for it to be a real problem it has to be part of business as usual in a society. Its like slavery ... some slaves are probably very happy with their lives. So who are you to say slavery is wrong?
I understand what you are saying MrTortoise, and I agree with you on some points. Keep in mind though, that even in the absence of a systematic social sexist stance, it is still possible to be sexist against men. Is 'society' sexist against men? Likely not, and I'm not arguing that. There is still work to be done in terms of gender rights and equality, and it will probably take many years more of struggle.
However, with this said, if an employer refused to hire a man for a nursing position solely because he was a man, and for no other reason, it would still be sexism. This is obviously just an example of a direct application of the definition of sexism. If you disagree that it this kind of scenario is sexist, what word would you use to describe it?
|
On November 19 2011 03:58 Fission wrote: I understand what you are saying MrTortoise, and I agree with you on some points. Keep in mind though, that even in the absence of a systematic social sexist stance, it is still possible to be sexist against men. Is 'society' sexist against men? Likely not, and I'm not arguing that. There is still work to be done in terms of gender rights and equality, and it will probably take many years more of struggle.
However, with this said, if an employer refused to hire a man for a nursing position solely because he was a man, and for no other reason, it would still be sexism. This is obviously just an example of a direct application of the definition of sexism. If you disagree that it this kind of scenario is sexist, what word would you use to describe it?
We agree, I don't think common language has the words that sufficiently separate the ideas to tell the truth. Would be interested to know of a language that does distinguish them though. I do think that they are different and i am pretty sure that you and the original person you quoted were talking about different things though. That's all i wanted to highlight.
I think you did well calling it a social or cultural sexism - and i doubt anyone outside this thread would know what you meant immediately though.
|
I'm pissed at the extremists who say calling a manhole a manhole is being sexist. Other than that I think its pretty terrible the working conditions females have had to put up with to this very day. It has gotten a lot better but there are still a lot of places left where discrimination based on gender exists.
You have some pretty good points though.
|
On November 19 2011 04:14 OmniEulogy wrote: I'm pissed at the extremists who say calling a manhole a manhole is being sexist. Other than that I think its pretty terrible the working conditions females have had to put up with to this very day. It has gotten a lot better but there are still a lot of places left where discrimination based on gender exists.
You have some pretty good points though. I agree with you, I don't think females should be discriminated in any way, I'm just starting to worry a little bit about this "Fem-Pride" or whatever you should call it. "-Pride" is almost universally a bad sign (IE White-Pride, Black-Pride etc)
|
On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here?
Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that.
There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff.
Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior.
|
On November 19 2011 03:45 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote: I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based. I hope this is a joke.
Well, you can't have culture without genetics first. But of course, that doesn't mean that genetics have caused all cultural differences. Then this is all made more complicated by the fact that culture and genetics interact. That said, any simplistic view, whether on the side of cultural controlling all human differences or genetic essentialism is certainly wrong.
In our example, height has strong heritability. Pygmies are genetically (or at least epigenitcally) distinct from other Africans in this area: This is not (at least primarily) a cultural issue. It is a genetic/ethnic one. Ethnicity != Skin Color.
|
On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior.
If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist?
|
On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist?
If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Yes but it's a matter of perspective. You're predisposed to favor your own perspective or condition, which makes you overlook or be unreceptive towards things that are unfair from another perspective. And it goes both ways obviously.
That will never be completey solved but the first step is to admit there are things you can't understand or account for. The best example of this is in the N-Word South Park episode, between Stan and Token.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. for sports it's usually both genetics and environment. I think it would be racist to say white people are incapable of becoming world class sprinters.
I've heard some people talk about basketball and say there's no white Michael Jordan. But until there was Jordan, there was no black MJ either. And in his case, people who attribute his greatness to only genetics may be a bit racist. His intelligence and work ethic made him that way.
Id imagine it's the same for Usain Bolt as well, but I don't know enough about the sprinting world. In the past, the genetics argument has been used to discredit an athlete's acumen and work effort, and instead attribute their success to luck of being born that way.
EDIT: It's the same for Asians being good at math. Sure, once in 500,000,000 people there's someone who can teach themselves Calculus but for the most part they do well because they work and study tremendously hard.
|
I think your definition of sexism is very narrow. I think it's sexist to think that a guy is into cars just because he's a guy, or that the woman should do the laundry because she's a woman. My personal definition of sexism is:
sexism - perceived gender roles based on preconceived notions of behaviour typical to gender
Under this definition, not all sexist ideas or necessarily negative or untrue. I prefer this definition because it allows awareness that either gender can be discriminated against equally. It's not fair to force your idea of a gender role on a member of either gender because everyone is different. I think that these sexist behaviours are related to the discrimination against gay people. It's not fair or right. Ever. Period.
I would also like to propose a difference between statistical discrimination and sexual/racial discrimination. It is true that young male drivers are the least safe demographic of driver, that is true according to statistics. It is possible to put safety devices into vehicles of young males to make the roads safer. The first example is statistical discrimination and the second is sexual discrimination. I think that a more fair proposal would be to put these safety features into every car, or at least into the cars of young drivers - particularly if the expectation is that the driver pay to have these features installed.
How would you feel if it was determined that it was only white people who were reckless drivers, so legislation was passed so that white people had to have these safety features installed in their cars? It sounds pretty shaky. I don't think it's incorrect for members of every race to have the same features installed if it is determined that this will save lives.
To continue this line of thought with the sprinting debate, let's say we have statistically determined that the fastest sprinters tend to be black. A country which wants to win olympic gold might scout for talent in countries which have a higher proportion of black people to increase their chances of finding the next gold medallist. It is not guaranteed that the next winner might be black, but the country has determined that it is more likely that the next gold medallist will be black so they are scouting a black runner. This might be racist, but this is only statistical discrimination and not negative racial discrimination if that makes sense. What would be negative racial discrimination is telling your friend that he probably runs really fast because he's black. It's not fair to impose this stereotype on someone regardless of their race, gender or any other factor which is beyond their control.
If you tell MMA that he is good at Starcraft because he has good results, this is a conclusion you've reached based on factors in his control. If you tell him he's good because he's Korean, this is a conclusion based on factors out of his control and I don't regard this as a fair way to stereotype him.
If you say that IdrA is bad at Starcraft because he has poor results, then this is a conclusion you've reached based on factors in his control. If you tell him he's bad because he's white, this is a conclusion based on factors out of his control and it is not fair to stereotype him this way.
In either case, the skill of these players are based only on your opinion and the results are debatable. The difference is that people will discuss the games each player has played if you use the first approach (the results-based approach), but there will be much vitriol in any discussion which focuses on the second approach (the racial approach).
Hope that makes sense.
|
On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided.
Yet at the same time, you can't deny the presence of genetics in these sort of situations. Given the african environment that the homo genus spawned from (Assuming recent african origins hypothesis), you can't say genetics aren't involved. Simply based on evolution, individuals populating the african continent possess longer forelimbs, wired hair, amidst a couple other features to help cope with the heat. By extension, due to the type of game down there, speed became an important aspect. Other phenotypic traits can be found around the world. The scandanavian populace has the highest percentage of grey iris's, thought to have become prevalent not as a response to, but as a environmental advantage to counter snow blindness and reflect excess light away from the light.
Am i considered misguided in this sense?
I'm not going so far to say that genetics is the sole reason why a large number of individuals with african descent perform well physically, but there is a factor. Natural variation dictates a growth pattern in the muscle tissue; some are born with a tendency for slow twitch endurance muscle whilst others have more fast twitch power muscle.
How about neurogenesis? The ability for the brain to send X quantity of signals simoultaneously plays a large role in contractile strength of muscle units. Neuron firing too, can be trained, but select individuals have a natural advantage over others.
with respect to the sprinter comment, no i wouldn't think that makes you racist, you merely pointed out a statistical observation, where's the fault in that.
|
On November 19 2011 05:31 ProjectVirtue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote:On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. Yet at the same time, you can't deny the presence of genetics in these sort of situations. Given the african environment that the homo genus spawned from (Assuming recent african origins hypothesis), you can't say genetics aren't involved. Simply based on evolution, individuals populating the african continent possess longer forelimbs, wired hair, amidst a couple other features to help cope with the heat. By extension, due to the type of game down there, speed became an important aspect. Other phenotypic traits can be found around the world. The scandanavian populace has the highest percentage of grey iris's, thought to have become prevalent not as a response to, but as a environmental advantage to counter snow blindness and reflect excess light away from the light. Am i considered misguided in this sense? I'm not going so far to say that genetics is the sole reason why a large number of individuals with african descent perform well physically, but there is a factor. Natural variation dictates a growth pattern in the muscle tissue; some are born with a tendency for slow twitch endurance muscle whilst others have more fast twitch power muscle. How about neurogenesis? The ability for the brain to send X quantity of signals simoultaneously plays a large role in contractile strength of muscle units. Neuron firing too, can be trained, but select individuals have a natural advantage over others. with respect to the sprinter comment, no i wouldn't think that makes you racist, you merely pointed out a statistical observation, where's the fault in that.
Spawned? Really? I know it wasn't your intent to make it sound like africans are roaches or something, but you could have chosen a better word for such a touchy subject.
The fault in the sprinter comment is that it sounds like you attribute the success of the black runner to his race. A professional runner must train for many hours each day and all year round in order to get where they are. By saying only that black runners are usually faster than other runners, you omit the training that these runners had to undertake to get there. Regardless of whether or not the point is correct, it's very narrow and irrelevant. I don't understand why the observation needs to be made at all.
|
On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist?
Not automatically but I'd question your motives for bringing it up. Lots of people who bring up stuff like that are in the "black people are only good at sports and they can't be scientists" camp.
|
On November 19 2011 05:48 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 05:31 ProjectVirtue wrote:On November 19 2011 04:44 trias_e wrote:On November 19 2011 04:42 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote: Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right? Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior. If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist? If you say it has to do with genetics, then some people would say yes. I think those people are very misguided. Yet at the same time, you can't deny the presence of genetics in these sort of situations. Given the african environment that the homo genus spawned from (Assuming recent african origins hypothesis), you can't say genetics aren't involved. Simply based on evolution, individuals populating the african continent possess longer forelimbs, wired hair, amidst a couple other features to help cope with the heat. By extension, due to the type of game down there, speed became an important aspect. Other phenotypic traits can be found around the world. The scandanavian populace has the highest percentage of grey iris's, thought to have become prevalent not as a response to, but as a environmental advantage to counter snow blindness and reflect excess light away from the light. Am i considered misguided in this sense? I'm not going so far to say that genetics is the sole reason why a large number of individuals with african descent perform well physically, but there is a factor. Natural variation dictates a growth pattern in the muscle tissue; some are born with a tendency for slow twitch endurance muscle whilst others have more fast twitch power muscle. How about neurogenesis? The ability for the brain to send X quantity of signals simoultaneously plays a large role in contractile strength of muscle units. Neuron firing too, can be trained, but select individuals have a natural advantage over others. with respect to the sprinter comment, no i wouldn't think that makes you racist, you merely pointed out a statistical observation, where's the fault in that. Spawned? Really? I know it wasn't your intent to make it sound like africans are roaches or something, but you could have chosen a better word for such a touchy subject. The fault in the sprinter comment is that it sounds like you attribute the success of the black runner to his race. A professional runner must train for many hours each day and all year round in order to get where they are. By saying only that black runners are usually faster than other runners, you omit the training that these runners had to undertake to get there. Regardless of whether or not the point is correct, it's very narrow and irrelevant. I don't understand why the observation needs to be made at all.
is that the only point you can take from that paragraph? Do i make africans sound like roaches? Take note that I incorporated the entire genus Homo, this includes us sapiens, our ancestors neandertalis, homo erectus to the east, and others as well. By extension, this includes whites, asians, east indians, and any other race as well. Spawn as a standalone verb, can also be regarded as production in large quantity. Recall also that the genus homo is believed to have descended from a previous lineage as well, the oldest being austrilopithecus afarensis (discovery of lucy). It's only touchy, if you make it touchy. Keep an open mind.
The phrase itself, "black professional atheletes run 100m faster on average", has no insinuation about his success. If you read my previous post, you can deduce that genetic advantage is only one factor, and hard work provides the rest of the result. He also didn't say "only black runners", i don't know where that came from. It wasn't the observation that was made, but an example to comment on racial stigma and interpretations. Obviously it did produce such an effect, at least in you. Considering the posts before it discussed the neutrality of racism vs sexism as a function of statistical evidence vs subjective opinion, then it is relevant.
|
On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: The phrase itself, "black professional atheletes run 100m faster on average", has no insinuation about his success.
It infers that black professional athletes typically run 100m faster than something. You could say that it's faster than non-athletes or amateurs but I think most people would conclude that the intent was that black professional athletes sprint 100m in a shorter time than 100m athletes of other ethnic backgrounds. The goal of the 100m dash is to run in the shortest time possible so the author has definitely insinuated that black athletes are more successful than not black athletes.
On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: If you read my previous post, you can deduce that genetic advantage is only one factor, and hard work provides the rest of the result.
My objection is just that it should be a topic of conversation at all. My comment was based on the original one line statement about the sprinter, and not your digression.
On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: He also didn't say "only black runners", i don't know where that came from.
You just said it right now, that's where it came from. What I said is that if you only say that "black runners" are faster than other runners, you omit the other factors. I deem the other factors to be the most important part of the conversation. If the conversation is about how black people run faster than other people then we shouldn't be having this conversation. Word order is important here.
On November 19 2011 07:14 ProjectVirtue wrote: It wasn't the observation that was made, but an example to comment on racial stigma and interpretations. Obviously it did produce such an effect, at least in you. Considering the posts before it discussed the neutrality of racism vs sexism as a function of statistical evidence vs subjective opinion, then it is relevant.
I'm one of those posters. Yes this type of conversation causes people to interpret because the inferences are easy to make. The data is being presented in an incomplete manner and the lay man may conclude that races are fundamentally different. That's not fair. People are different, and humans have great potential to do whatever they want. By choosing to use simple statements, people draw simple conclusions based on the evidence presented.
If you want to make a statistical statement, then provide a link to the evidence or say where you're getting the data from. Regardless of the predominance of the type of skeleted striated muscle fiber, this can be retrained so genetic predominance of slow twitch/fast twitch muscle fibers may not actually have a strong effect on athletic performance. Research into the issue is ongoing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK57140/
Again, I think that the main factor is preference but I don't know for sure. The type of language you have chosen to use is limiting to aspiring sprinters who happen to have a genetic predisposition to less melanin because the statement is very simple.
|
On November 19 2011 00:25 Jibba wrote:Young men are the least safe demographic of driver. But no, I'm sure it's just because the world is out to get your non-sexist self. I'm glad your non-sexist self doesn't mind attributing an attitude to all women, because of one unseen male or female driver's bumper sticker. You've really thought this blog through, you non-sexist, you. What that doesn't take into account is how much the average male drives in comparison to the average female.
Throw 100 bucks on red 27 and you may win it, but it's unlikely. Throw 1 buck on it a hundred times, and you're likely to get it at least once.
Statistics can be manipulated so easily.
|
United States22883 Posts
Fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100 million miles traveled, by driver age and gender, April 2001–March 2002:
Male Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 4,257 Miles: 46,427,394,010 Rate: 9.2
Female Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 1,852 Miles: 35,264,476,105 Rate: 5.3
Male Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 8,949 Miles: 225,999,581,860 Rate: 4.0
Female Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 3,172 Miles: 156,283,683,955 Rate: 2.0
From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
|
On November 19 2011 00:47 mrafaeldie12 wrote:Show nested quote +And I must say it's stupid how women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. ??? Do you have any proof of this? 0/5 lol, fail. If you're accused of rape and it's your word vs hers, who do you think everyone is going to believe?
|
On November 19 2011 11:18 Jibba wrote: Fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100 million miles traveled, by driver age and gender, April 2001–March 2002:
Male Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 4,257 Miles: 46,427,394,010 Rate: 9.2
Female Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 1,852 Miles: 35,264,476,105 Rate: 5.3
Male Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 8,949 Miles: 225,999,581,860 Rate: 4.0
Female Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 3,172 Miles: 156,283,683,955 Rate: 2.0
From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Do you have numbers for alcohol-related incidents? I'm just curious because I can basically draw nothing from these data. There is no information on how to prevent these at all. It is useful for insurance purposes which is completely different imo. Insurance is a legal form of gambling.
|
United States22883 Posts
No. :/ Insurance companies are the people who pay the most attention, which is probably why they have the data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a database, but I couldn't find a reference for miles driven, so it only came back with overall male/female numbers.
|
Throughout most of human history, the truth has taken a backseat to the prejudices and sensitivities and desires of society. It could be a church accusing a scientist of blasphemy, or a people unjustly accusing someone of sexism/racism/fill in the blank.
Society is about trying to pressure and coerce people into behaving and thinking a certain way, about killing independent thought or action. People will always be slow to accept the truth, because the truth is cold, it is harsh and inconvenient and unwelcoming.
We aren't really rational beings, we are emotional beings, and one thing that gets the modern socialized humans' emotions going is the conditioned sensitivities toward race/gender/etc.
|
On November 19 2011 12:08 Jibba wrote: No. :/ Insurance companies are the people who pay the most attention, which is probably why they have the data. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a database, but I couldn't find a reference for miles driven, so it only came back with overall male/female numbers.
Okay, well insurance is different because the insurance companies are taking a risk on you. The concept of statistical discrimination is the foundation of insurance. They have to charge low enough that you're willing to buy the insurance, but high enough to justify the risk.
If you get in an accident with someone, then whoever caused the damage needs to compensate the other party. Imagine a scenario where somebody lost their life in a car accident to a drunk driver, but the drunk driver was unable to afford to compensate the family of the deceased. An insurance policy is important in this scenario because they will compensate the victim's family (which can be in the order of millions of dollars). If insurance companies weren't able to discriminate against certain people (younger people; people who have previously caused an accident; or people who are driving unsafe vehicles), then they would have to universally raise the price of insurance in order to offset the risk. Competition would be a dangerous game of reducing the fixed cost of insurance while trying to ensure that you are receiving enough money to compensate claimees. There is also the possibility that people will be less careful about being in accidents if they can not be punished with higher insurance premiums.
Basically, the reason insurance companies collect this data is that they have to know what kind of risk they are able to accept when they take you on as a client (a liability). If they charge too much, you'll choose a different company which took on a greater risk; if they charge too little, they might be caught in a position where they can't afford to pay out a claim.
The difference between insurance and policy is that it is not politically correct to create a policy which discriminates against a particular race or gender. If the government wishes to pass a law which reduces the risk of young men causing an accident, I think they should pass it unilaterally against all genders and possibly against all ages.
|
Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it.
Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker.
Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets.
Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on.
Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh.
Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman.
Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE.
What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche.
TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men.
BUT WAIT
I know what you're going to say:
"Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!"
So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever?
BUT WAIT
I know what you're thinking.
"Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!"
To which I agree. But why not:
"Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!"
Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient.
People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history.
Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing.
Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders.
+ Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting.
|
On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol...
Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you!
As an aside... It's possible the mods will warn or ban you for this post. You might want to edit fast
Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines?
|
On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol.
|
On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote: You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic?
|
On November 19 2011 13:09 TruthIsCold wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol. TL's mods are better than that, lol, they don't ban you just because they disagree. Case in point: Jibba above. He evidently disagrees with my point of view and could have probably froze me easily. But he didn't; he recognizes my opinion even though, as he says, I'm an idiot.
|
On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? There are mandatory high school and college courses across the country dedicated to teaching people how to argue against you in this subject. You will not win, just give up now.
|
On November 19 2011 13:12 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:09 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:06 TruthIsCold wrote:On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Also, sexism is a natural consequence of an empirical and extended failure of women to do anything much. Before everyone sets phasers to kill, think about it. Computers? Apart from Ada Lovelace, (who was NOT the first computer programmer, Charles Babbage made an infinitely superior contribution), EVERYTHING has been done by men. Gates, Torvaldis, Knuth, Jobs. C, Windows, Unix, Linux, Mac OS, the mouse, the keyboard, the USB drive, the monitor, the LCD screen, the speaker. Technology in general, btw. Electricity, light bulbs, rockets, calculators, phones, microphones, glasses, CD's, DVD's. Refrigerators, washing machines, toilets. Math? Gravity, physics, derivation, integration, summation, trigonometry, etc. was ALL developed by men. Newton, Galileo, etc. Astrophysics? Einstein, Chandrashekar, Eddington, Susskind, Penzias...the list goes on. Art? DaVinci, Michelangelo, Manet, Monet, Gaudi, Raphael, Van Gogh. Literature? Milton, Emerson, Thoreau, Bradbury, Steinbeck, Clark, Asimov, Tolstoy, Salinger, Poe, Hawthorne, Miller. Out of ALL of the course texts I've read in 3 years of high school, only ONE has been written by a woman. Music? lol, perhaps even more than science: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Rachmanianoff, Liszt, Tchiakovsky, Gershwin, Schubert, Mendelev, Debussy, Schumann, Shostakovich...I've studied music theory for 11 years and out of ALL of the famous composers I've had to remember/have seen on tests, not ONE was a woman. Not ONE. What is freaking left? Psychology? Freud, Jung, Hall, Wundt. Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche. TL DR; Everything, pretty much ever, has been done by men. BUT WAIT I know what you're going to say: "Women only failed to accomplish anything because of patriarchal society yo!" So, men dominate women. We make the do the unpleasant stuff, like not pay for dates and get everything in divorces and stuff! In all seriousness, however, why do we (men) go to war? If we just made women do the unpleasant shit, then why do MEN go to war, the most unpleasant thing, ever? BUT WAIT I know what you're thinking. "Men are stronger than women - making women go to war would be stupid!" To which I agree. But why not: "Women are less adept at mathematics than men - having women do math would be stupid!" Suddenly, a shitstorm. I mean, any female and any feminist would be absolutely willing to say that men are stronger. Why can't they admit that men are smarter? Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Strength is a physical characteristic; intelligence is as well. If you deny this, explain how those hit over the head as children grow up mentally deficient. People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history. Whiteknights will try to point out the few female scientists, etc. that have contributed. I'm not saying that NO female will EVER contribute, just that sexism has empirical backing. Men built the pyramids, the great wall, the Eiffel tower, the Taj Mahal, and Chichen Itza. They are the soldiers, scholars, artists, and leaders. + Show Spoiler +To mods: I respect your decisions so far in the bans/warnings I have received. I feel strongly, though, that there is no warrant for banning me in this post. I don't swear, I state only empirical fact, and I'm not flaming or trolling anyone. This isn't martyring, this is just pre-empting. lol... Your post was in bad taste, but it really gave me a good laugh, thank you! As an aside... I hope you are ready to get banned for your beliefs. Otherwise you might want to edit fast Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the spoiler you made. You are doomed, my friend. Doomed. Why? What part of my post broke the guidelines? You broke the "don't make any mod mad at you" guideline. It's not like they have a clear set of rules lol. TL's mods are better than that, lol, they don't ban you just because they disagree. Case in point: Jibba above. He evidently disagrees with my point of view and could have probably froze me easily. But he didn't; he recognizes my opinion even though, as he says, I'm an idiot. Jibba's not the only mod on this forum, friend. Some mods are much more tolerant than others. Of course I'm not back seat moderating here, I'm just giving you a friendly warning to be careful.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century?
Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative.
How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything.
|
Wow... I definitely laughed quite a bit after reading:
People will bring up bullshit lab experiments "proving" the relative intelligence of the female. Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history.
The post was in bad taste. But as a source of amusement, forgivable. It's like you took the most absurd possible argument and then expected it to be debated with complete seriousness.
Human beings are not equal. Those that argue that they are wage war against bravery, intellect, beauty, well-constitutedness, strength, and individuality. But this inequality is not caused by ethnicity or sex or even in many cases genetics, but always by individuals.
|
On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote: You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point.
I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war.
It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that?
To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy.
A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools.
This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate?
C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote: intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag.
Oh boy, I tried to warn him... He's pushing his luck.
|
On November 19 2011 13:17 shinosai wrote:The post was in bad taste. But as a source of amusement, forgivable. Given that he lives in the US, I don't think it's particularly forgivable. The guy's basically an imbecile... I'm not a big fan of those ad hominem attacks but when people just spew garbage like that, it's all I've got.
Argument: Women have historically accomplished less than men have. -> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. Counter argument: 1- Men do the unpleasant stuff a) Pay for dates (We do this for mating purposes, that's because we want them to like us - so that we don't rape them) b) They get half the stuff in divorce (That's new given that they used to be treated like animals, stupid point) 2- Why do we go to war? (Oops, he realized that that argument didn't work so he just said something else that was also dumb) (Later): "Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history." [Comment: Now that's not very science'y] -> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. (He didn't make a single good point to discredit the argument that women haven't been accomplishing as much because of the patriarchy!!!).
Basically: 1- Women have historically accomplished less than men have. 2- True, but that doesn't mean they're not as smart. They simply didn't have access to the means men had. 3- No, women have historically accomplished less than men.
Much evidence points to the fact that brain development is related to the size of the brain; the ratio among smarter creatures increases empirically (save for the Homo Erectus). Funny enough, there's no such evidence, unless you're talking about various blogs. As a fun addition, Einstein's brain was smaller than average... and smaller than the average... woman brain... Oh golly.
Edit:
This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. You realize that this question you're asking is like: answer 2+2 but you can't say 4!
Men go to war because they're stronger and therefore more able, that's a large part of the reason. This is getting less and less true because we have weapons and technology now, but for instance in WW1 it was just men on the battlefield - that's because of social norms - men have always handled the whole thing, which makes sense seeing how you used to swing a heavy sword around and stuff.
This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. Yeah... AT FIRST, when the HUMAN RACE APPEARED on Earth, we started looking into the discrepancies between the average m... Dear God you're a nutter -_-
I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. Your answer is bad and why do you think "your answer" has any weight? If you knew anything about how society worked (and you obviously don't) you'd understand that there wasn't necessarily any kind of rationality behind it. Women were considered inferior (it was a patriarchy, you see...) and so they didn't have access to those things simply because those were the norms. Originally obviously education didn't even exist, and when it "came up", women didn't have access to it as they were considered inferior (due to the patriarchy).
There wasn't this big decision where men and women sat down and decided that women should cook and wash dishes. Men decided to keep women out - it might have made sense at the time, women were "stupid" because that's how it was. In this world, some cultures encourage potentially very smart people to be complete idiots because education is seen as bad. Those people are not necessarily less able...
Anyway I don't even care that much about this issue, but dude you make stuff up (you really do) and you're so confident about your garbage that you'll convince some feeble minds... Sigh.
|
Given that he lives in the US, I don't think it's particularly forgivable. The guy's basically an imbecile..
Well, that just makes it even more forgivable. We have an awful lot of morons here in the states, and we can't get mad at them for their genetic deficiency in intelligence.
+ Show Spoiler +authors note: high amounts of sarcasm may be found in this post
|
On November 19 2011 03:06 AxUU wrote: Well, it's true that men control some areas, but seriously, isn't it also sexism, if a job is given to a woman instead of a man, just to add so called "equality" between genders, it's just ridiculous. I've heard of people (through my friends) losing their jobs because the company wanted to hire women instead in order to not look sexist in the eyes of their customers.
While I don't agree with firing someone is performing well at their work just for the sake of hiring someone of the other gender (or whatever group), I think there is a case to be made for hiring people from specific groups in the name of homogenization;
Suppose we have two groups of people, group A and group B, and one job. Let's make the assumption that to each person we can assign some metric of ability, say qualification, at performing this job (just so we can say person 1 should get the job over person 2). This is potentially variable (eg, education, practice could improve it), but well defined at any given time, so we can compare job applicants. We can also allow for another metric which I'll call natural ability or talent that is not variable. For example, if we consider a job that requires excessive heavy lifting, with group A = men, group B = women, one might give a natural ability advantage to men for physiological reasons. I do not want to consider this case; instead let's make the assumption that the distribution of natural ability over the members of group A and group B is close to the same.
Now, suppose group A is, for whatever reason, typically (traditionally, stereotypically, w/e) seen as better at this job than group B. Because of this, it is likely that more people from group A will consider this a worthwhile job to pursue. Assuming this and that people actually want this job, people from group A will have an edge in qualification; they will tend to train more for a job they believe they will be better at, whereas people from group B will likely be significantly less enticed by this job and will spend less time preparing themselves for it; ie they will have lower qualification values. This happens due to societal views despite the equality of talent (may be taken as an assumption, though any reason for one group having higher qualification can really substitute with appropriate modification; eg access to education).
With this skew, it's likely that naively any hiring company would choose applicants from group A over those from group B more frequently. The problem with this is that, in the long term, companies would not be choosing the best possible candidates for the job in terms of natural ability; even if a person from group B has less qualification (and even if ultimately they end up being worse at the job than the leading candidate from group A would have been), it benefits the company in the future to encourage members of group B to apply for their job as they will have a larger talent pool to draw from (eg can take top 5% overall talent-wise as opposed to top 10% of group A) and thus overall have higher quality workers. Obviously, this needs to be balanced with the company's need to have quality employees to survive, but if longevity is not an issue, then this is not really a factor.
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote: You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post
I feel like my eyes are being opened, thanks man.
|
On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote: You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post
Do yourself a favour and read this: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/11/03/000334955_20101103062028/Rendered/PDF/576270WDR0SecM1e0only1910BOX353773B.pdf
This article touches on the importance of improving gender equality, but focuses on how this has been accomplished rather than why it's important. It's the best thing I could find before going to bed, but the world bank database should have plenty more if you're still not convinced.
One important thing I think everyone should read is on page iv under the heading of "Box 2 Equality of what? Opportunities, outcomes and women’s welfare"
I think this is gist of the argument here. Some economists think that each person should be afforded equal opportunity and some think that each gender should have equal outcome. The main difference is the approach. The first option believes that men and women should be treated identically in terms of rights and education. The second camp believes that the genders will only be considered equal when their lifetime wealth is equal.
|
On November 19 2011 14:28 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 13:28 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:15 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 13:11 djbhINDI wrote:On November 19 2011 13:07 Jibba wrote: You are such an idiot. That's fully possible. I'm not claiming to be smarter than every female in the world; I'm not. Relative to many of my friends, I'm an absolute dumbass. But as far as this specific post, I don't see why I'm necessarily an idiot; is there a hole in the logic? How do you suppose women should have studied to become mathematicians or physicists when no university in modern history would admit them until Oberlin in the 19th century, and they were still widely banned from most schools such as Oxford until well into the 20th century? Women who did accomplish anything essentially had to use a pen name of a male, or submit their achievement under the name of a male relative. How does your post demonstrate anything? It's essentially like asking why slaves hardly invented anything. Ah, it seems you've misunderstood my point. I'm asking the question: Why were women banned from school in the first place? My answer: The same reason that they were banned from war. It's not like we sat down and decided, as a race, that women shouldn't go to school. We simply recognized that they were good at some things (child rearing, which men really do fail at) and are not as good at others (war and math). What's unreasonable about that? To explain the fallacy in your point of view, I'll provide an analogy. A1: A substantial portion of Africa is in a shitty condition today; high maternity death rates, poverty, starvation, genocide, etc. A2: Women have failed, empirically, to contribute substantively to society in almost every objective respect. B1: This is because European colonization of Africa, as it left the continent, left an absolute power vacuum that was soon filled by despots and the bellicose. Hence, the current state of Africa is Europe's fault. B2: This is because the patriarchal society kept women out of schools. This, unfortunately, is where you stop. The third step in analysis, however, is crucial: WHY did B occur? Was it some divine mandate? C1: This is because Africans at the time of the initiation of colonization lacked the societal cohesiveness, diplomatic organization, or military technology to retain their power structures. C2: This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. This fits perfectly with the fact that women do not go to war; it's not that men make women do every unpleasant chore possible, it's that we've realized each gender's relative strengths and weaknesses. If you want to argue against my point, then explain a reason (other than men = stronger, hardier, don't give birth than women) that men go to war. User was warned for this post Do yourself a favour and read this: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/11/03/000334955_20101103062028/Rendered/PDF/576270WDR0SecM1e0only1910BOX353773B.pdfThis article touches on the importance of improving gender equality, but focuses on how this has been accomplished rather than why it's important. It's the best thing I could find before going to bed, but the world bank database should have plenty more if you're still not convinced. One important thing I think everyone should read is on page iv under the heading of "Box 2 Equality of what? Opportunities, outcomes and women’s welfare" I think this is gist of the argument here. Some economists think that each person should be afforded equal opportunity and some think that each gender should have equal outcome. The main difference is the approach. The first option believes that men and women should be treated identically in terms of rights and education. The second camp believes that the genders will only be considered equal when their lifetime wealth is equal. I'm not sure what relevance this has...I'm not arguing against gender equality at all. Neither, were I arguing against equal pay, would I take the ridiculously pedantic position that implementation is implausible. Hence, I have no idea what you're trying to prove here.
|
On November 19 2011 11:18 Jibba wrote: Fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100 million miles traveled, by driver age and gender, April 2001–March 2002:
Male Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 4,257 Miles: 46,427,394,010 Rate: 9.2
Female Age 16-19 Crash Involvements: 1,852 Miles: 35,264,476,105 Rate: 5.3
Male Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 8,949 Miles: 225,999,581,860 Rate: 4.0
Female Age 20-29 Crash Involvements: 3,172 Miles: 156,283,683,955 Rate: 2.0
From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Are you arguing its ok for insurance companies to age/gender discriminate but its not ok for anyone else? Just because money is involved should not give insurance companies the right to discriminate. Also I mean I'm sure these stats are somewhat accurate but that is a small sample size, and I wouldn't ever trust anything paid for and researched by an insurance company. Those statistics are bloated, It clearly states there are more men driving more often, so they are obviously more likely to get into accidents isn't that obvious? Say I owned a restaurant, and overtime I noticed male waiters are more likely not to report all their tips, and or steal from the business, should I be aloud to not hire men or vice versa? When the same business that gets to determine who pays more, is doing the research it seems that would be the definition of hypocrisy. ( This subject is a little touchy for me because 2 years ago I was crashed into by a lady high on crack, literally, a few days out of rehab, it was a saturday and she claimed to be coming from church. She blew through a stop sign and 3 lanes of traffic to t-bone me at almost 45 miles an hour, completely destroying my car and leaving my friend with some pain for months. She went to jail, but probably belongs there, I however was out a car, my only means of transportation at the time. However she had no insurance, and my broke college student ass didn't have the "right kind" of insurance so I received 0$ for the damages to my car. A car worth maybe 5000-6000 dollars at the time, but something I had worked years for to be able to afford. My options were to, deal with it, or sue a crack head that will be forever in jail and end up paying legal bills and never seeing a penny from this person. 2 months later my insurance premiums rose ~25%/yr even though the insurance company didn't pay me a dime. I ended up losing my car obviously and being forced now to drive around without insurance in a 800$ piece of shit nissan, as my insurance costs are more than the value of my car I really cant afford it. So If I have trouble respecting anything an insurance company has to say/do that is why.)
edit: To the OP, while this advertisement you saw was in poor taste and very sexist and borderline insane. Your post was a little shortsighted as you are only looking at the situation from one perspective. Women have been discriminated against for millennia, While this doesn't give them the right to make the same mistakes that were made against them in the past. 1 or 2 of them lashing out once in a while is to be expected. You should try just laughing about the stupidity of the person rather than getting mad at an entire group of people.
last edit: You people arguing that women shouldn't be treated fairly because of "what they have accomplished over the last 10,000 years" are insane and disgusting, enjoy being foreveralone and out of your mind.
|
Please note that whenever I make a comment analogous to "men > women" at WHATEVER it is, that it is a postulation, not something I'm saying is a FACT. I'm not calling women dumb at all here.
On November 19 2011 13:31 Djzapz wrote:
Argument: Women have historically accomplished less than men have. -> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. Counter argument: 1- Men do the unpleasant stuff a) Pay for dates (We do this for mating purposes, that's because we want them to like us - so that we don't rape them) b) They get half the stuff in divorce (That's new given that they used to be treated like animals, stupid point) 2- Why do we go to war? (Oops, he realized that that argument didn't work so he just said something else that was also dumb) (Later): "Here's a lab experiment for you: the last ten thousand years of human history." [Comment: Now that's not very science'y] -> That's because it has been a patriarchy and women didn't really have access to education, etc. until recently. (He didn't make a single good point to discredit the argument that women haven't been accomplishing as much because of the patriarchy!!!).
1. A and B, in case you didn't catch my drift, were humorous. I was not actually arguing this, but of course you were starting from the assumption that I am an imbecile because my opinion is not politically correct. 2. Not science-ey? Why not? It has more text subjects, accounts for every possible variable, and is not in any way influenced by the observer. It is indeed much more "science'y" than any structured, unrealistic lab test today. Of course, it doesn't utilize control groups or whatever you want, but it provides very strong, tangible conclusions, as opposed to much of what you call science. Also, my example about war, which you called dumb, was never refuted. Why exactly was it dumb? Are you just calling it dumb because it's my argument? I thought you "weren't a fan of those ad hominem attacks".
The war example demonstrates undeniably that MEN, upon realizing that MEN were better suited, as you admitted (and ignored my preempt), to war. This completely disproves the stance that men, because they were stronger, made women do any undesirable task. Think about it. ANY culture in the world used men as warriors, and almost all of these cultures also had men as scholars, etc. I'll quote you, "Men go to war because they're stronger and therefore more able, that's a large part of the reason. This is getting less and less true because we have weapons and technology now, but for instance in WW1 it was just men on the battlefield - that's because of social norms - men have always handled the whole thing, which makes sense seeing how you used to swing a heavy sword around and stuff."
This, in case you didn't yet realize it, is EXACTLY my point. Men go to war because they're better at it than women. Similarly, men do math, science, etc. because they're better at it than women. It's not because we like the things we do - who likes war? Men aren't doing the fun stuff; they're doing what they're GOOD at. The reason it is a "social norm" (you) for men to go to war is the same reason it is a social norm for men to go to school. We're better. <- This is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. Your arguments "against" war fall flat on their faces, however. You admit exactly what I said was true.
Basically: 1- Women have historically accomplished less than men have. 2- True, but that doesn't mean they're not as smart. They simply didn't have access to the means men had. 3- No, women have historically accomplished less than men.
You fail to understand the specificity of the logic here. Africa's current state (which isn't really deniable apart from a few select nations) is a result of the power vacuum that arose as European colonialism disintegrated post WWI and II. But the reason they were taken over in the first place (this is from my textbook, not me) is because they were fighting off muskets with spears. They traded slaves from other tribes to the Europeans; their ancestral internal conflicts tore them apart to the point where some even turned against the other tribes. They lacked military technology and union. THAT is the root, root cause of the problem.
In the same way, it became, as society developed, gradually apparent that the female was marvelously adept at child rearing and organizational activities, while the male was good at hunting. Child rearing, cooking, and other such activities, you see, are largely repetitive. The leadership roles were filled by men, and gradually, it was accepted that women were less acclimated to certain activities. One was war, which the men agreed to take care of.
What you refuse to see here is that if society was truly patriarchal - if men controlled absolutely everything and did everything to control and subjugate women, then women would go to war. This doesn't make sense! Women aren't good soldiers; they are shorter, less muscle tone, etc. WHY then (as you've admitted the above) is it so impossible to admit that they were less demonstrative of intellect as well? Well, it leads us to the next point.
Funny enough, there's no such evidence, unless you're talking about various blogs. As a fun addition, Einstein's brain was smaller than average... and smaller than the average... woman brain... Oh golly.
Once again, you completely misconstrue the argument. http://www.teleodynamics.com/wp-content/PDF/Humanbraindifferences.pdf
What I'm saying is not that men have bigger brains than women and are therefore smarter. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying IS that physical aspects of the brain (NOT just size; composition, connectivity, synapse coordination) are relevant towards intellect. Since everyone (including you - swords) admits that women are weaker (a physical characteristic) than men, why not that women are less intellectually developed (a physical characteristic) in certain areas than men?
You realize that this question you're asking is like: answer 2+2 but you can't say 4! I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Of course, you absolutely fail to "explain a reason other than men = stronger..."; you literally say, "men are stronger, and that's why". Sigh.
This is because human society gradually elucidated the discrepancy between the average female and male strengths, and intelligence wasn't exactly in the female bag. Yeah... AT FIRST, when the HUMAN RACE APPEARED on Earth, we started looking into the discrepancies between the average m... Dear God you're a nutter -_- I'm a nutter? The alternative is that we one day, as an entire human race, sat down as a species and decided that, "from now on, women are doing x, y and z, and men are doing a, b, and c. THAT seems a bit weirder, if you ask me. Of course, I'm an imbecile, right?
Your answer is bad and why do you think "your answer" has any weight? If you knew anything about how society worked (and you obviously don't) you'd understand that there wasn't necessarily any kind of rationality behind it. Women were considered inferior (it was a patriarchy, you see...) and so they didn't have access to those things simply because those were the norms. Originally obviously education didn't even exist, and when it "came up", women didn't have access to it as they were considered inferior (due to the patriarchy). I do debate, and "your answer is bad" is possibly the worst way I've ever seen someone handle an argument. Why wasn't there rationality behind it? You yourself explained the rationality of men going to war. Why not men going to school? Women were considered inferior, yes, particularly because the necessary tasks (like hunting, developing weapons and tools) were done by the men. We hunted, obviously, because we were stronger. We developed the tools, intuitively, because we actually knew what we needed.
Originally education didn't exist? What do you call instruction in how to hunt, how to track? I assume that in your middle school you were taught that each generation of cavemen independently discovered fire? But of course, it's ME who doesn't know anything about society. lol. Do your teachers say that physics isn't part of education? Because that's what spear throwing was. Sure, it wasn't write shit down education, but it was education nonetheless. And the girls at home were also learning about how to sow and cook. "Oh this is where the pat. society started!!!" Yes. It is. It started as women didn't hunt and, as they didn't therefore know what men needed on hunts and what tools/weapons needed to be improved, probably didn't improve/invent tools either.
Also, there are probably more ad hominem attacks in these two sentences than there are in my entire post...
There wasn't this big decision where men and women sat down and decided that women should cook and wash dishes. Men decided to keep women out - it might have made sense at the time, women were "stupid" because that's how it was. In this world, some cultures encourage potentially very smart people to be complete idiots because education is seen as bad. Those people are not necessarily less able...
Anyway I don't even care that much about this issue, but dude you make stuff up (you really do) and you're so confident about your garbage that you'll convince some feeble minds... Sigh.
There wasn't this big decision...exactly what I argued before. You called me a nutter for doing so. Hmm... It was a gradual recognition.
Now once again (as I predicted in my very first post) you say, "Men decided to keep women out". WHY, then, do men go to war? We can make women do anything we want, right? Your explanation doesn't match the facts. "It's because men were better at wa-" so why not better at math? You have NEVER explained this properly.
"Dude you make stuff up"...You have accused me of making up one thing this entire keyboard battle, which regarded the physical characteristics of brains. I provided you a scholarly article supporting my point (which was that intellect is a physical characteristic). What else did I 'make up'?
I'm confident about my garbage? Did you notice that my first post itself predicted and answered every argument that you've made (Save for brain size...i didn't expect an argument to be misconstrued THAT badly)?
Please notice that I did not swear. I did not insult my opponent directly (as he did me, btw). I did not flame him. I provided evidence for everything I said, whether historical or analytic. I have done nothing against the TL guidelines. I happen to have a radical opinion, but that is "encouraged" on this forum, right? I am not trolling, and considering the number of people who have responded with a "You're an imbecile/idiot" (without any warrant, of course) simply because they disagreed, I can't possibly see myself as the villain here.
|
On November 19 2011 18:04 TheGiftedApe wrote: edit: To the OP, while this advertisement you saw was in poor taste and very sexist and borderline insane. Your post was a little shortsighted as you are only looking at the situation from one perspective. Women have been discriminated against for millennia, While this doesn't give them the right to make the same mistakes that were made against them in the past. 1 or 2 of them lashing out once in a while is to be expected. You should try just laughing about the stupidity of the person rather than getting mad at an entire group of people. Yeahyeah, I know it probably was uncalled for, but i was kindof mad yesterday. And I did say at the beginning that it was going to be a rant, which = I'm mad = I'm not rational = Letting off steam + My inability to express my opinions properly, which often leads to hating/flaming bad ratings.
I can however say I regret making this post, it seems like it's getting out of hand here. Would have been fun to abuse my "Blog Mod" rights and ban everyone from posting until they forget about this ^^
edit
Can't ban Hot_Bid, Jibba or Chill? I think I knew I couldn't do that anyway...
|
On November 19 2011 13:00 djbhINDI wrote: Philosophy? Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Buddha, Camus, Nietzsche.
With all due respect, you should really stick to talking about things you have a clue about. Particularly, your grasp on ancient history is, uh, loose.
In Menexenus, Socrates' interlocutor is a woman by the name of Aspasia. In Apology, Socrates claims that he intends to question women in the underworld after death, because he can't do it in Athens (41C). The only ancient school for which we have no evidence for the admission of women is Aristotle's. It's a little troubling that men that died ~2300 years ago were aware that they lived in a patriarchy with intelligent women that would be able to contribute if they were allowed, and you don't.
PS. Simon de Beauvoir was a jillion times more interesting than Sartre.
Edit: Also, in recent philosophy, some of the biggest superstars are women. Many of them are the first generation to have really had the right to be academics; Nussbaum, for example, wasn't allowed in the library at Harvard when she was starting her PhD because she was a woman. It would seem that once we allow women to do things, they're actually pretty good at them...
|
Wowowow is this thread full of a lot of shit.
Regarding false rape accusations and how womens can just make up shit and ruin a man's life forever. The FBI estimates that roughly 8% of reported rape accusations are false. This number includes cases that were thrown out because the accuser wasn't a "proper victim", aka, she didn't fight back hard enough, was too drunk to resist, and/or she knew or was dating the accused and so obviously it wasn't rape. Other government and private studies on the subject come up with numbers closer to 2-3% for false-reports, but for now let's take the liberal estimate of 8%.
I would really really really like it if everyone could read this article: http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/sexual-violence-report-march.pdf This is a Department of Justice document summarizing a big hearing on sexual violence in the United states from March of last year. It's long and full of loads of numbers and stuff, but just make it through the executive summary if you can. It dispels a lot of bullshit myths about rape that somehow persist in our culture. Compiled in the summary are studies conducted by the Department of Justice, the National Institute of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court, Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
If we take the already liberal estimate of 8%, and combine it with the percentage of rapes which go unreported, (as outlined in the document linked above) we can conclude that roughly 1 in 50 women reporting rapes are lying about it. This is no higher than the average rate at which other violent crimes are falsely reported. Now falsely accusing anyone of a crime is a heinous act, and anyone doing so is a shitty person. But for every woman falsifying such a report, 49 are actually victims of sexual assault. To focus solely on "bitch might be lying" completely invalidates their experience.
I know men have it soooo hard in our society, but let's take a look at how other rape cases are viewed by society and the law. Here's a post I wrote a few months ago in another thread: + Show Spoiler +On August 26 2011 00:17 Haemonculus wrote:I will state again that anyone, male or female, who falsifies a criminal report, is a shitty person and should not be allowed to get away with it. Criminal investigations should absolutely be based on evidence, and the police and authorities should focus on *that* and now you know, how the victim was dressed, or what she was doing alone by herself that time of night, or, hey it's her ex so maybe she was into it. (and yes, cases HAVE been thrown out because of such trivial things) However there's so much more to this issue than "bitches love to lie about this sort of thing, because you know, they loooove attention." Let's look at some recent high profile rape cases, and look at how the courts and media present them. Because we *don't* treat victims of other crimes like this. If you accuse someone of mugging you, and the police go find him and sure enough, he's got your wallet, they will NOT look at you and ask "Well maybe you were dumb enough to give it to him and later felt bad about it?" or "You're aware that wearing a nice suit this late at night just sends the signal that you're wealthy and a good target for mugging", or "Mr blank, you've given money to the homeless before, perhaps this was just more charity on your part?" Such claims wouldn't be tolerated for an instant. So why are they with cases of sexual assault? We'll start off with a real doozy. 20 men of various ages abduct and gang rape an 11 year old girl. They threaten to beat her if she does not comply. To top things off, some of them video tape it on their phones, and send it around to their friends. It eventually finds its way to the police. Horrible story, but do you know what the media articles talked about? How much makeup she wears, and how her mother is at fault for letting her dress like that. She was described as "attention seeking", and "promiscuous." Various towns people say she wears too much make up, and "looks older", which you know, means she was totally asking for it. A famous case. This one kills me. A female contractor working for KBR overseas claims she was drugged and gang raped. Promised a female-only barracks, she is instead put in the male barracks and reports being harassed numerous times for about a week. One day she wakes up, covered in bruises, (she required 2 separate reconstructive surgeries) and bleeding from well, everywhere. She rushes to the doctor, is treated for extensive injuries, and then promptly locked in a shipping crate when she tries to call home. Yes, locked in a shipping crate for almost a week until one of the guards "took pity on her", and let her use his cell phone to call her father back in the states. Federal agents rescue her, and again, find her locked up like an animal. Due to her contract, she is not legally allowed to pursue a day in court until just recently. Her case was just thrown out, deemed "frivolous" despite all the evidence, and now it looks like KBR wants 2 million dollars fro the trouble. A jury decided that she consented to the sex, (which again was so brutal she required reconstructive surgery), and that due to a contractual clause in which she agreed not to press charges against KBR, that all further incidents in the case, (like being locked up without food/water) had to be thrown out as well. The victim's entire personal history was dragged through the mud, but names/histories of all but one of the accused assailants were barred from the courtroom, (some of the accused have other histories of violence against other women, but this information was disallowed to the jury). Other sexual assault cases against KBR were similarly barred from the court room. How this qualifies as a fair courtroom boggles my mind. How can you have a fair trial if the doctor who treated her injuries, and the federal agents who rescued her, are not allowed to even speak in the courtroom? More details on the history of the case are available here.Another one.. Two cops escort a drunk woman back to her apartment. An hour after they leave, they falsify an emergency call and go back to her apartment. One stands outside and watches, (all caught on security footage btw), while the other went back inside and supposedly raped her while she was unconscious. The officers claimed they didn't have sex with her, even though one of them is *caught on tape* talking about how it wasn't a big deal because he wore a condom. The case was thrown out because the victim was too drunk to remember details of the night. "I'm being treated unfairly!" On the topic of police and rape, here's another one. A off duty cop is caught literally with his pants down, raping a school teacher at gunpoint in an alley. His defense? "The DA is trying to make an example out of me because of the other cops who got acquitted." His lawyers are trying to have the case thrown out on grounds that the prosecution/jury will be biased against him. Despite the fact that he was seen dragging his victim into an alleyway, and that when police responded to the 911 call, he was found, pants around his ankles, forcibly having sex with the victim, gun in hand. An innocent teacher's life is turned upside down on her way to work, and the defense is claiming that HE is being treated unfairly. Anyway, I can bring up many many more cases, just as I'm sure that Frigo can bring up more links to falsified rape reports. Again, falsifying any criminal claim is horrible, but at the end of the day we just don't treat victims of any other crime with this much suspicion, skepticism, and distrust. It doesn't matter how much make up she wears, you DON'T rape an 11 year old girl, much less film it and show all your buddies how cool you are. There is NO excuse for beating a woman so badly she needs reconstructive surgery, and then locking her in a goddamn shipping crate. The fact that an arbitration clause vindicates such actions is fucking sickening. I don't care how drunk she is, just because she can't protest does not mean it's alright to have sex with her. Victims in other criminal cases would never be treated like this. Why can't we take sexual assault seriously?
Moving on: (roughly paraphrased) "It's not like we collectively decided to not let women do things, it's just that we noticed that they weren't as good at math and stuff." Really? This is so full of horseshit I don't even know where to start. Women are underrepresented in hard science fields, true. Does this mean that we're inherently worse at math/science? Would you also agree that minorities which are also underrepresented in hard science fields or at the upper tiers of corporate hierarchy are also simply not as capable or intelligent? A hundred years ago there would be *no* women enrolled in any colleges, nor any minorities. Were women/minorities a hundred years ago simply dumber than today by nothing else but biology? Are we then literally thousands of times smarter/more capable than we were then, again strictly speaking by natural ability and completely ignoring socialization? These arguments make no sense whatsoever.
To boot, anyone who's studied human history will tell you that at the most basic levels of human society, that of foraging groups, gender roles are actually more egalitarian than in societies using any other means of production. It isn't until the emergence of intensive agriculture and the division of labor and ownership of resources that heavily gender stratified societies are found. Claiming that such divisions are simply built in to human nature is silly.
Finally, people seem to completely ignore the fact that we're raised differently. Women aren't as competitive? Women just inherently aren't interested in math or science? We aren't raised like you guys. How many parents buy their daughters a chemistry set, or an erector set? Knex or legos, which stimulate creativity and building? We get fucking dolls and toy kitchens. We're actively encouraged to *not* be super competitive. Have you ever watched the shit on TV that's aimed at young girls? Watch a few shows in the Disney channel, showing dolled up middle schoolers bickering between themselves over the attention of cute boys all day, and try not to puke.
Times are changing, and we're starting to encourage our daughters to be interested in more practical science fields, but the women in the workforce today, (whom clearly aren't interested in hard sciences, as they're underrepresented), probably weren't raised to have any interest. It just seems so silly that you can completely ignore socialization, and then claim that women are somehow naturally not as good at things.
Blah, that's my rant for the day.
|
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:
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.
|
Just sorta skimmed through this thread to get a general idea of what the discussion is centered on and all I kept wondering is when did women being in the kitchen and raising children while the man works become such a reviled thing. Its a system that worked for centuries and in many past and present civilizations.
Modern people are too safe and have way too much fuckin time on their hands and so they invest all kinds of emotions in shit that dont really matter. That Homoculus girl's recent post got me wondering if the women of the hunter/gatherer's societies of the ancient world ever question their role. Probably not, because their survival would have been far more difficult to secure than a modern person's. No modern medicines, no highly organized military, and very primitive tools with which they had use to survive in a harsh world where everything is out to kill them. They wouldn't care as long as whatever system they have helped them to survive.
Gender roles are part of a system of survival even in our time.Its a system that works. Its nothing to demonize or get worked up about. There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker.
|
Ugh. It's so hard to resist a terrible argument.
Look at that Wikipedia list. Of the first thirty, how many were born in the 20s and 30s? That is, how many of those people went through grad school before there were any significant increases in women's rights?
(Hint: more than 20.)
Again, I know you don't care about my expertise or my field. I really don't give a damn; I'm used to arrogant, condescending jerks telling me how useless I am after demonstrating how totally uninformed they are about what they were pontificating about. I've told you that a large proportion of the useful contributors in my tiny sub-sub-sub-field are women. I know you don't care, and I get that you don't want to care, but please stop asserting that worst you've been 'brought to a stalemate'. You were 100% flat wrong about ancient Greece, and you know absolutely nothing about the state of modern philosophy. Please stop using it as evidence.
Edit: Also, amusingly, here are the people that are, as far as I know, big names: Adorno Althusser Anscombe Appiah Arendt Ayer
1/3 of those are women. Also, it doesn't include every major philosopher born in the 20th century whose name starts with 'A', and all of them were born prior to 1940 with the exception of Appiah.
|
On November 20 2011 06:48 SarR wrote: Just sorta skimmed through this thread to get a general idea of what the discussion is centered on and all I kept wondering is when did women being in the kitchen and raising children while the man works become such a reviled thing. Its a system that worked for centuries and in many past and present civilizations.
Modern people are too safe and have way too much fuckin time on their hands and so they invest all kinds of emotions in shit that dont really matter. That Homoculus girl's recent post got me wondering if the women of the hunter/gatherer's societies of the ancient world ever question their role. Probably not, because their survival would have been far more difficult to secure than a modern person's. No modern medicines, no highly organized military, and very primitive tools with which they had use to survive in a harsh world where everything is out to kill them.
Gender roles are part of a system of survival even in our time.Its a system that works. Its nothing to demonize or get worked up about. There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker.
There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker, there is something inherently wrong with forcing women to not have the equal choices men have to what kind of lifestyle they want.
Not all women want to be homemakers and not all men want to have the responsibility of working, some like taking care of their children and some are fulfilled that way.
The question is choice, women should be given equal choice and civil rights as their counterparts
The rest of your post is purely cynicism and ridiculous. Modern times doesn't have too much free time on their hands, they just have enough tools and technology to open up more opportunities and lifestyles for different kinds of family and no longer the nuclear family, hence a more flexible and diverse ways of living for all genders and races.
|
On November 20 2011 06:48 SarR wrote: Just sorta skimmed through this thread to get a general idea of what the discussion is centered on and all I kept wondering is when did women being in the kitchen and raising children while the man works become such a reviled thing. Its a system that worked for centuries and in many past and present civilizations.
Modern people are too safe and have way too much fuckin time on their hands and so they invest all kinds of emotions in shit that dont really matter. That Homoculus girl's recent post got me wondering if the women of the hunter/gatherer's societies of the ancient world ever question their role. Probably not, because their survival would have been far more difficult to secure than a modern person's. No modern medicines, no highly organized military, and very primitive tools with which they had use to survive in a harsh world where everything is out to kill them. They wouldn't care as long as whatever system they have helped them to survive.
Gender roles are part of a system of survival even in our time.Its a system that works. Its nothing to demonize or get worked up about. There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker.
And in a world where getting eaten by bears and saber toothed tigers was a daily hazard, perhaps such distinctions made sense. But in a modern society? Slavery got shit done too, but it clearly violates the rights of other human beings. On what basis in today's world should we still decide that women should stay home and cook/clean?
May I ask, when was the last time you brought down a mastodon? Are such divisions of social roles still necessary?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker *by choice*. She should not feel like it's her obligation or only option in life.
|
On November 20 2011 06:35 djbhINDI wrote:Show nested quote +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'. Yes, I was incredibly profane when asking you to give me even a single reason as to why women might be natural born housewives.
|
Oh, he got banned. Pity that he's going to blame it on liberal, PC oppression rather than general asshattery, but still somewhat satisfying.
Thanks mods!
|
On November 20 2011 06:56 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 06:35 djbhINDI wrote: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'. Yes, I was incredibly profane when asking you to give me even a single reason as to why women might be natural born housewives.
Why, it's due to the larger basin of matured women and their underdeveloped shoulders (comparable to men, who have broad square shoulders). This allows women to bend over more appropriately to put uncooked meats in the oven since their hips gives a better, heavier foundation so they don't topple over.
In addition, their lack of broad shoulders makes them more flexible and thus have an easier time cleaning in those more difficult areas such as behind the fridge, under the couch and the ceiling fan's blades.
How could you not know this?
|
On November 20 2011 06:50 Torte de Lini wrote: There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker, there is something inherently wrong with forcing women to not have the equal choices men have to what kind of lifestyle they want.
Nothing was forced on them. It just fell into place and got accepted as the norm.
On November 20 2011 06:50 Torte de Lini wrote: The rest of your post is purely cynicism and ridiculous. Modern times doesn't have too much free time on their hands, they just have enough tools and technology to open up more opportunities and lifestyles for different kinds of family and no longer the nuclear family, hence a more flexible and diverse ways of living for all genders and races. This modern iPod Blackberry Facebook generation do have too much time on their hands and use it to complain about all types of bullshit.
|
On November 20 2011 07:00 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 06:56 Haemonculus wrote:On November 20 2011 06:35 djbhINDI wrote: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'. Yes, I was incredibly profane when asking you to give me even a single reason as to why women might be natural born housewives. Why, it's due to the larger basin of matured women and their underdeveloped shoulders (comparable to men, who have broad square shoulders). This allows women to bend over more appropriately to put uncooked meats in the oven since their hips gives a better, heavier foundation so they don't topple over. In addition, their lack of broad shoulders makes them more flexible and thus have an easier time cleaning in those more difficult areas such as behind the fridge, under the couch and the ceiling fan's blades. How could you not know this? Stfu, MAN. Now get your ass back in the garage and fix my car.
On November 20 2011 08:10 SarR wrote: Nothing was forced on them. It just fell into place and got accepted as the norm.
What is the difference? In times where women had no other options but to be wives or homemakers, how are they not forced?
|
On November 20 2011 08:10 SarR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 06:50 Torte de Lini wrote: There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker, there is something inherently wrong with forcing women to not have the equal choices men have to what kind of lifestyle they want.
Nothing was forced on them. It just fell into place and got accepted as the norm. Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 06:50 Torte de Lini wrote: The rest of your post is purely cynicism and ridiculous. Modern times doesn't have too much free time on their hands, they just have enough tools and technology to open up more opportunities and lifestyles for different kinds of family and no longer the nuclear family, hence a more flexible and diverse ways of living for all genders and races. This modern iPod Blackberry Facebook generation do have too much time on their hands and use it to complain about all types of bullshit.
You really have no idea what you are talking about and if it wasn't forced, why can't they want equal choices and opportunities. It was an accepted norm back then because there was a falsehood of scientific basis to what women were good for or capable of doing (biologically, smaller physical brains meant people were dumber, which is entirely false and laughable). Now that we can see that biologically, women are equally, if not more (see China) capable to reach the same levels of intelligence or cooperation with society as a contributor to the marketplace, there is no reason to stick with those norms.
Tradition isn't always the way to go. Conflict theory in Sociology dictates that the world can't progress if it isn't constantly changing. To withhold women the rights to be equal as a person and not equal to men (because no comparison should be made socially speaking) is holding back society's right to technological advancements along with medicine, foreign political ties etc.
Conflict theories are perspectives in social science that emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.
This modern iPod Blackberry Facebook generation do have too much time on their hands and use it to complain about all types of bullshit.
That's cute, because this has been a battle since the 30s and then 60s and so on. So... which generation are you referring to or do you just enjoy making sweeping generalizations on generations based on convenient technologies that you personally dislike.
What a joke, honestly.
|
On November 20 2011 06:48 SarR wrote: Its a system that worked for centuries and in many past and present civilizations.
Its a system that works. Its nothing to demonize or get worked up about. There is nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker. Name one patriarchal civilization that worked better than modern time non-patriarchal first world democracies. Really, just one. Not restricting women's rights is a pretty good thing - and if they want to be a homemaker, then that's fine by me.
We live more comfortably than ever. If you figure that it worked back then based on the fact that we didn't go extinct, that's pretty funny, really. Just look at how terrible their quality of life was and try to make the argument that everything was so great back then.
On November 20 2011 08:10 SarR wrote: Nothing was forced on them. It just fell into place and got accepted as the norm.
At first it fell into place - perhaps for convenience. Then it was forced onto them because "the norm" was comfortable to males which were stronger and more educated because of "the norm". Vicious circle that kept women down for thousands of years.
Note: lol at the crazy person getting banned on the other page... he's probably pretty convinced that his argumentation actually was sound -_-
|
A lot of people don't know the difference between being treated equally and being treated the same.
|
On November 20 2011 09:20 Djzapz wrote: Name one patriarchal civilization that worked better than modern time non-patriarchal first world democracies. Really, just one. Not restricting women's rights is a pretty good thing - and if they want to be a homemaker, then that's fine by me.
You're going to have to first define what makes a better society. Is it economic power, or military power or general standard of living. If we are to substitute for a moment, successful in place of better then I submit that Rome, the Ottoman empire, the Russian empire and the various dynasties of ancient China were all massively successful political entities in their respective time periods and all were patriarchal societies. Note that while women in these societies didnt have much in terms of political power or any kind of significant power, that their roles in these various societies were important.
|
What women want and what women says they want are very different things.
Once you understand that, you understand all.
|
Osaka26979 Posts
On November 19 2011 00:42 Nytefish wrote: I think it's fair for insurance companies to give lower rates to female drivers. But then you also have to be consistent in other areas. When comparing two identical candidates for a job (except for their gender) it seems to be reasonably logical to give the woman a lower wage, or hire the man, because of the chance that she may go on maternity leave.
You know men can go on maternity leave too right?
|
On November 20 2011 14:36 haduken wrote: What women want and what women says they want are very different things.
Once you understand that, you understand all. Yep, always this.
|
On November 20 2011 14:15 SarR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 09:20 Djzapz wrote: Name one patriarchal civilization that worked better than modern time non-patriarchal first world democracies. Really, just one. Not restricting women's rights is a pretty good thing - and if they want to be a homemaker, then that's fine by me.
You're going to have to first define what makes a better society. Is it economic power, or military power or general standard of living. If we are to substitute for a moment, successful in place of better then I submit that Rome, the Ottoman empire, the Russian empire and the various dynasties of ancient China were all massively successful political entities in their respective time periods and all were patriarchal societies. Note that while women in these societies didnt have much in terms of political power or any kind of significant power, that their roles in these various societies were important. And slaves were incredibly crucial to the economic development of the early US. Sure they might have not had any rights or freedom, but the US needed cheap labor and this class of people served that function. They were very important.
If you read any pro-slavery propaganda from the 17 and 1800's, you'll see that the authors make the exact same arguments you're making. It's for their own good, they're actually very happy in slavery, they don't know anything different, they provide a needed function to the country, they simply aren't capable of freedom, etc.
On November 20 2011 14:46 SarR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 14:36 haduken wrote: What women want and what women says they want are very different things.
Once you understand that, you understand all. Yep, always this. Sigh. "Don't tell me what you want, let me tell you what you want, because you clearly can't make the correct decisions for yourself."
How does this shit still fly?
And regardless of what your little quote says, please tell me the practical implications of your reasoning. Do we all secretly want to be oppressed, but we're just too shy to come out and say it, and thus gender stratification is good? What's your point?
|
On November 20 2011 06:48 SarR wrote: Just sorta skimmed through this thread to get a general idea of what the discussion is centered on and all I kept wondering is when did women being in the kitchen and raising children while the man works become such a reviled thing. Its a system that worked for centuries and in many past and present civilizations.
Define "worked." Looking at the history of various "civilizations" and the sorry state of the world today, how can you say that this system works, exactly?
|
In my own personal experiences I know more girls who have had or do have DUIs right now like over 8 at least. In fact I know a girl who has at least 5 or 6 of them and is in jail AGAIN for dui. I think maybe only like 1 dude ive known has had a DUI and my ex's uncle or something.
|
On November 20 2011 14:46 SarR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 14:36 haduken wrote: What women want and what women says they want are very different things.
Once you understand that, you understand all. Yep, always this.
You're an idiot. Female biology isn't so different from men's that they're completely illogical. Women know what women want as well as men know what men want. Our brains are far more similar than dissimilar.
The purpose of a generalisation like yours is simply to make you feel like your sexist attitude is OK. It's not based on any evidence at all.
|
On November 21 2011 16:22 Swede wrote: You're an idiot. I thought TL.Net encouraged higher posting standards than base insults when someone submits an idea that another user disagrees with. Ive rendered my thoughts in a respectful manner yet I am greeted with this childishness when someone disagrees with me ?
If you lack the intelligences to debate in a coherent manner without the use of vicious insults then I advise you to leave such a thing to your more intellectually gifted peers. There is no love lost between me and you. Just friendly advice
|
So basically you saw a bumper sticker that was designed by an insane person and you were so enraged by its quotation that you had to write a blog about how all women are somehow apart of this ideology and how absurd that 'fact' is?
|
On November 21 2011 16:45 SarR wrote:I thought TL.Net encouraged higher posting standards than base insults when someone submits an idea that another user disagrees with. Ive rendered my thoughts in a respectful manner yet I am greeted with this childishness when someone disagrees with me ? If you lack the intelligences to debate in a coherent manner without the use of vicious insults then I advise you to leave such a thing to your more intellectually gifted peers. There is no love lost between me and you. Just friendly advice
First of all your post is completely hypocritical. Don't whinge about me calling you an idiot and then try to sneak through a veiled insult of your own (bolded). Typing it all fancily doesn't make it better. Besides, I couldn't care less if I've insulted you. People with opinions such as yours are almost always impervious to reason anyway. Better to call you an idiot and get out than bother with your silly arguments.
Secondly, your thoughts may have been respectful in the sense you didn't insult anyone on TL, but you sure as hell haven't given women the respect they deserve. Unless you can present empirical evidence that the societies you described were more successful in specific ways, peer reviewed research demonstrating significant differences in intelligence between the average man and woman, or something just as good as those then I can only conclude that your position is based on stereotypes and a desire to be 'superior', or something equally misguided.
And the intelligent people you're talking about don't accept speculation or vague reviews of history. So far that's all you've presented.
|
On November 21 2011 18:42 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 16:45 SarR wrote:On November 21 2011 16:22 Swede wrote: You're an idiot. I thought TL.Net encouraged higher posting standards than base insults when someone submits an idea that another user disagrees with. Ive rendered my thoughts in a respectful manner yet I am greeted with this childishness when someone disagrees with me ? If you lack the intelligences to debate in a coherent manner without the use of vicious insults then I advise you to leave such a thing to your more intellectually gifted peers. There is no love lost between me and you. Just friendly advice First of all your post is completely hypocritical. Don't whinge about me calling you an idiot and then try to sneak through a veiled insult of your own (bolded). Typing it all fancily doesn't make it better. Besides, I couldn't care less if I've insulted you. People with opinions such as yours are almost always impervious to reason anyway. Better to call you an idiot and get out than bother with your silly arguments. Secondly, your thoughts may have been respectful in the sense you didn't insult anyone on TL, but you sure as hell haven't given women the respect they deserve. Unless you can present empirical evidence that the societies you described were more successful in specific ways, peer reviewed research demonstrating significant differences in intelligence between the average man and woman, or something just as good as those then I can only conclude that your position is based on stereotypes and a desire to be 'superior', or something equally misguided. And the intelligent people you're talking about don't accept speculation or vague reviews of history. So far that's all you've presented. So my opinions make it ok for you to attack me. Is that what you're implying ? What if I think you're the moron, is it then ok for me to insult you as such ? Would that be allowed here ?
|
United States22883 Posts
Yes, you're an idiot.
There's a thread full of this crap and it still hasn't sunk in to your head. Furthermore, your initial argument comes from the same line of stupid as bhindi's and you haven't even attempted to challenge anything Haem has said.
"Society worked just fine this way before" is the exact same oppressive shit every social majority power says when it begins to lose power.
|
On November 21 2011 20:15 SarR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 18:42 Swede wrote:On November 21 2011 16:45 SarR wrote:On November 21 2011 16:22 Swede wrote: You're an idiot. I thought TL.Net encouraged higher posting standards than base insults when someone submits an idea that another user disagrees with. Ive rendered my thoughts in a respectful manner yet I am greeted with this childishness when someone disagrees with me ? If you lack the intelligences to debate in a coherent manner without the use of vicious insults then I advise you to leave such a thing to your more intellectually gifted peers. There is no love lost between me and you. Just friendly advice First of all your post is completely hypocritical. Don't whinge about me calling you an idiot and then try to sneak through a veiled insult of your own (bolded). Typing it all fancily doesn't make it better. Besides, I couldn't care less if I've insulted you. People with opinions such as yours are almost always impervious to reason anyway. Better to call you an idiot and get out than bother with your silly arguments. Secondly, your thoughts may have been respectful in the sense you didn't insult anyone on TL, but you sure as hell haven't given women the respect they deserve. Unless you can present empirical evidence that the societies you described were more successful in specific ways, peer reviewed research demonstrating significant differences in intelligence between the average man and woman, or something just as good as those then I can only conclude that your position is based on stereotypes and a desire to be 'superior', or something equally misguided. And the intelligent people you're talking about don't accept speculation or vague reviews of history. So far that's all you've presented. So my opinions make it ok for you to attack me. Is that what you're implying ? What if I think you're the moron, is it then ok for me to insult you as such ? Would that be allowed here ?
I can't speak for the TL mods on whether it's allowed to insult me on here, but I'm personally okay with it. It's all useless drivel until you provide evidence for your claims (societies with oppressed women being more successful, implied idea that women are of less intelligence), and since respectable studies into intelligence as it relates to gender almost universally conclude that differences in gender intelligence are statistically insignificant I suspect you will have a hard time doing that.
As to societies with oppressed women being more successful, I can't think of any possible way of defending that position, and that's not simply because I don't want to - it's just that the idea that squashing the potential of any group of people can somehow create a more successful society in the long term is basically illogical. Even if just one women of all the billions in the world advances human understanding by the smallest amount as a result of not being oppressed... it's still more than if she weren't given that opportunity. Point is that there is nothing to gain by oppressing women (even if they are 'lesser' like you seem to think). Oppress them and there is next to no chance they achieve greatness, but give them equal opportunity to men and the worst that can happen is they contribute exactly the same as when they were oppressed. If you think that's wrong then explain by what mechanism it could be wrong.
|
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100322-26043.html (Best english source I could found that quickly, sorry.) He was found not guilty btw because the accusations were complete bullshit. A famous german feminist was all apeshit against him. He is found not guilty, yet his career is ruined.
There is always a little bit of truth in a rant(Okay, not always, but often.). But you cannot imply because of a few that everyone is like that.
Imho the problem with feminism, or rather that it is still needed, is that our society in general has problems that just result in things like this. Miscommunication, "Miseducation", Massmedia manipulating people in a way huxley described best and other problems do create these situations in which women feel the need to step up for their rights. Rightfully so, mane people are still treating women like "lesser human beings" and all that shit, and this has to stop.
|
On November 21 2011 16:52 SuperbWingman wrote: So basically you saw a bumper sticker that was designed by an insane person and you were so enraged by its quotation that you had to write a blog about how all women are somehow apart of this ideology and how absurd that 'fact' is? Why does everyone automatically assume it's a bumper sticker? I didn't tell you anything about how big it was, did I now. It was painted all over the back of the car, which was a mini-buss, an official one. I thought governments were supposed to be neutral in this kind of stuff, so yeah, I do not approve. I was not enraged, I was mad, huge difference (no sarcasm). And you knew that this was a rant, and still you read it and post a question that has been asked before? People are so stupid...
|
On November 19 2011 00:47 mrafaeldie12 wrote:Show nested quote +And I must say it's stupid how women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation. ??? Do you have any proof of this? 0/5 Welcome to reality.
Also, the opening post is stupid, these kind of stereotypes matter the least of all the discrimination men are facing.
|
|
|
|