Interesting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 26

On April 04 2014 07:23 kwizach wrote:

It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.

With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.

On April 03 2014 23:05 kwizach wrote:

Since this is in no way, shape or form an accurate description of the book, and of chapter 10 in particular (in which Jordan-Young explores work done in developmental and evolutionary biology), I decide to google that little paragraph of yours, and sure enough you copy/pasted it entirely from a random Amazon review which happened to say something you thought would serve your argument, discarding the reviews which praise the book. Since that review is simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and ask you for a little intellectual honesty and to put aside the cognitive biases which led you to decide that the book was not accurate simply because it happens to destroy your beliefs with regards to the scope of the biological determinism of genders.


Again, scientific research points to extremely limited biological differences between genders in terms of cognitive features and abilities, differences which, in addition, have virtually no impact compared to the importance of how cognitive development proceeds as one grows up, irrespective of one's gender (hence the importance of fighting gender roles).

I was expecting a reference to such an article from your part, since the study referred to in the article indeed received a lot of publicity in the media when it came out at the end of 2013. Unfortunately for your argument, (1) the scientific results contained in the study do not actually say what was reported by numerous media outlets, including by your article (articles correcting earlier assessments were sometimes published later, such as in the Guardian), (2) the authors of the study themselves make claims which go beyond their actual results (for example, their conclusions presume brain structure to be independent of the environment in which it develops, which has been demonstrated to be false), (3) there are a number of methodological flaws in the study, or at least methodological points which prevent the results from telling us what you think they tell us with regards to gender differences, (4) the extrapolated conclusions from the author are inconsistent with previous research on the matter, in particular a "larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset)", as explained here.

You can find a huge article refuting the exact interpretations of the study that you are using as the basis of your argument here, but unfortunately it is in French (perhaps you can use a translator). Luckily, numerous neuroscientists rapidly posted articles online to challenge the erroneous interpretations of the paper that appeared in the media, as well as the flawed claims of the authors of the study themselves. You can find examples of these refutations here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Some notably touch upon the very misleading image of the blue/yellow connections in female and male brains which appears at the top of the Independent article you linked to.

To sum up, and like I said earlier, the very small biological differences which can on average be observed in terms of cognition between men and women at birth pale in comparison to the flexibility with which the brain develops, in particular in connection to its environment. Biological gender is in this respect not the relevant factor, but the environment (notably culture, including gender roles) is. Biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.

On April 04 2014 01:14 kwizach wrote:

He is the one making the claim that feminists "want to be above men". I extensively discussed the aims of feminism earlier in the thread - if he's going to make that claim, the burden of evidence lies with him, just like you'd expect someone claiming that feminists want to eradicate men, or that socialists want to kill babies, to provide some evidence supporting the accusation.

On April 04 2014 07:23 kwizach wrote:

It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.

With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.

On April 04 2014 07:23 kwizach wrote:

It would not be hard to prove if it was true - you would have to look at the positions of the authors who have had a major influence on feminism, and of the most important feminist organizations, and see if they believe that women should be "above men". Of course, if this was true, opponents of feminism would actually have something to substantiate their claims that feminists want women to be above men, but they don't.

With regards to your quote, I'm not sure how you interpret it as that person saying she thinks women are above men. What she is saying is that men cannot experience exactly what women experience (which is true). Personally, I completely disagree with her that this means a man cannot tell someone else about feminism, but her argument has absolutely nothing to do with saying that women should be above men.

On April 04 2014 09:27 Ercster wrote:
Why can't we just all be for the equality of everyone, regardless of gender, race, etc? Speaking specifically from a US perspective, women don't have all the rights men do, but men don't have all the rights women do. If we continue to have people focus on one section of the whole, rather than the whole, then we won't ever get anywhere. And if I'm going to honest, I don't think continuing and adding equality as a whole to the feminist movement will gain anything. There is too much negativity towards it (and you should be able to at least understand why).

On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote:


good job, you countered my 6 pool amazon cheese.

Alright, so let me get this straight. Now you are fighting me over the interpretation of the scientific finding. Some people says it's hardwired. Some people thinks it's determined by cultural expectation including gender roles. You maintain that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women.

This is where you are incorrected. The current scientific view on human development says that both nature(DNA) and nurture(environment,culture, etc) both has an affect on the development of a person. If we take that into an account. To make a claim that biology does not explain the structural differences in career choices between men and women is pushing it. What then is the explanation? Women can freely go for an engineer job. WHY ARE THEY NOT DOING IT?

On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote:
do you know why women aren't getting jobs as engineers, physicists, statisticians, computer programmers, mathematicians, actuaries, and fields where serious money is made? It's because they know it's hard and they don't want to do it. It's not because of society's cultural expectation. Not because of gender roles.

On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote:
Gender roles didn't exist merely because men want to keep women down. It exist because it's natural. It's the way of life. Look back at million of years ago in hunter-gatherer society. That's how it all began. Men were the biologically stronger race so we went out to kill animals and hunt and to protect teh women and children. Imagine if there was a tribe where the role were reversed. Women went out to hunt and men stays home and raise kids. That tribe wouldn't survive the minute it ran into a traditional tribe. Sure, the women are better than normal women at fighting, just like how women in WNBA are better than other women at basketball. But against men who are trained in their craft. the nontraditional tribe wouldn't stand a chance just like how the best WNBA team would get ran over by the worst NBA team. There is a reason why things are the ways they are. I preferred to write with my right hand because it's natural to me not because my left hand got oppressed.

On April 04 2014 05:51 Jumperer wrote:
What make you think you can reverse million of years of human history? Equality is a nice concept but it's not based on reality. Nobody want wars but there is going to be wars. Men and women are not equal when it come to biology and it's very obvious. Gender roles exist for a reason because men and women are better and worse at different things. THAT'S WHY THERE IS CULTURAL EXPECTATION TO BEGIN WITH. BIOLOGY is the root of all. Think about it in term of progaming starcraft. Kwanro is good at early game aggression(biology), so the fans(society) of course expects him to cheese or at least try to win game early. We(society) expect bisu to open FE into corsair alot in PvZ because we know that he has good multitasking skill(biology). Sure, you can go against your own biology traits, but you won't be as good.

On April 04 2014 06:07 Jumperer wrote:


the article clearly explained how they want to be above men. they want CEO jobs. they don't want construction jobs. The burden of evidence then shifted onto you to disprove that statement. It doesn't matter what you said earlier in the thread. This is a completely new argument. When we found out that the earth isn't flat, the people who proved that the earth is round don't have to prove themselves anymore. Now the earth flat people will have to find a new evidence to outargue us.

Of course, you are welcomed to argue the same points that you posted earlier in the thread. I myself would like to know what you think about the true aim of feminism.

On April 04 2014 10:26 kwizach wrote:

Again, feminism is about fighting for equality. But the point is that women are still disadvantaged in a lot more ways than men are in our societies, and that this fact needs to be highlighted. The reasons there is some negativity towards feminism are largely (1) that sexist stereotypes about men and women are still popular among many (see Jumperer), and (2) the systematic propagation of lies and distortions about feminism as a whole (see for example Rush Limbaugh's use of the term "feminazi"). Several people in this thread, for example, seem convinced that feminists want women to be above men, when that is completely false. If those people bothered to open a dictionary and inform themselves a little more on feminism, there would be a lot less negativity.

On April 04 2014 08:37 kwizach wrote:

Obviously DNA plays a role, because without it we wouldn't be human... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be supporting your point. Biology matters in terms of us being and developing as humans, but not in terms of differences in the relevant cognitive development of males and females. Again, there are some initial differences (and that's on average, not even across the two populations), but they're extremely minor and play virtually no role compared to the environment in which people grow up and develop. That is what the current scientific view is, as the references I provided you with, and that you discarded because they clashed with your beliefs, document clearly.


No, that is you making a claim which is not grounded in reality, which is why you're not substantiating it with anything. Beyond this, however, I'd like to point out that you seem to be misunderstanding what the influence of culture means - through the integration of gender stereotypes early in their development, women and men are notably led to believe differently in their capabilities, in what can be expected of them, and in what they should "naturally" aspire to. The effects of this are well documented by social science research (as well as neuropsychology). Again, read the references I provided you with.


First of all, there are several documented examples of hunter-gatherer societies which do not follow such a men-women divide and where women hunted just as much as men (if not more), including some that have survived to this day - the Agta in the Philippines and the Aka in Africa being two examples. Secondly, such arguments on physical abilities tend to overlook that women are often perfectly capable of reaching the physical requirements needed to accomplish a particular job as well as is needed. Thirdly, differences in physical abilities are not differences in cognitive abilities and predispositions, which is what is being discussed here. How a majority of hunting-gathering societies organized is in no way a relevant argument with regards to the gender roles feminism is fighting against today, which are grounded in false perceptions of differences between genders, many of which you seem to be espousing and reluctant to abandon.


I'm not sure how many times you are going to be repeating the false assertion that the biological differences between men and women are significant with respect to their cognitive abilities, but it won't make it true. You are the one who seems to be confusing his sexist stereotypical beliefs with reality. And bringing up terrible analogies with no relevance whatsoever won't help your case.


This is quite a hilarious take on the burden of proof. Sorry, but making a statement doesn't suddenly shift the burden of proof to the one who's dubious of the statement. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. To go back to your (once again failed) analogy, when we found out that the Earth wasn't flat, we "found out" through evidence. Those who claimed that it was flat therefore had to address that evidence. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence provided to support the claim that "feminists want to be above men", so the burden of evidence still lies with you/the author.

The true aim of feminism is to achieve equality in rights, opportunity and social status between the sexes.

On April 04 2014 10:56 Ercster wrote:

Feminism is defined as the movement for equal rights for women, hence its name. And the "men" aren't completely responsible for the hate towards feminism. There are a lot of videos on Youtube showing "Feminists" being extraordinarily rude and harsh towards men trying to understand their plight or some who are just spouting nonsense and lies. Yes, there are stereotypes that aren't helping (although some have truth), and men not helping, but to simply ignore the things this loud minority are saying is foolish.

For these reasons, I think we need to stop having feminists and masculists (yes, women have rights men don't have, too) and bring everyone together so we can all be equal, not this one-sided equality feminists and masculists are fighting for.

On April 04 2014 11:17 GoTuNk! wrote:

I don't understand how you can say biology doesn't play a role in how man/woman make their decisions, neither how it can be the "concensus"

Pick any female and put her on testosterone therapy, any male and put him on progesterone, and you have a completely different person.

Moreover, pick any guy with low testosterone and put him on the juice and you have a different person. Testosterone Replacement Therapy is an effective treatment for some cases of depression, apathy, insomnia, overweightness and a ton other stuff on men, yet biology doesn't play a role on how ppl make decisions?

On April 04 2014 11:18 kwizach wrote:

Again, feminism is a belief that there should be equality between the sexes in terms of rights, opportunities, and social status. The reason it is called "feminism" is that historically, and today still, women are the ones which have been at a disadvantage in our societies. To say that we should simply have "equalism" obscures this reality - not everyone is equally suffering from inequality. This certainly doesn't mean that we can't also do work in areas where men are disadvantaged, but the global picture is still that of men being in a privileged position, and there is a need to underline that.

Yes, of course you are going to find aggressive feminists, just like you can find examples of the type for almost every movement, including in the fight against racism. This doesn't mean that feminism, or anti-racism, should themselves be discarded.

On April 04 2014 11:27 kwizach wrote:

I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.

My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.

On April 04 2014 11:38 biology]major wrote:


seriously? Women have a lot of freaking power in our society at the moment. Not only can they choose to have a powerful career with so many opportunities, they can also choose to stay at home and be dependent on the male for a income, without much penalty. If the couple seperates, then mom will get custody of the children always. Inherently women can provide value to society through appearance/fertility alone, vs men who have to provide value through income and stability.

I mean if you want to be CEO of a company as a woman, odds are against you, but for day to day living within the vast majority of the population, I think feminism at this day and age is bullshit

On April 04 2014 12:18 kwizach wrote:

Having "a lot of freaking power", whatever that is supposed to mean, isn't having as much power as half of the population should have. Women remain extremely less numerous than men in positions of power, at all levels and in most domains. Gender roles continue to steer men and women towards career choices which benefit men more than women. General normative standards generally continue to favor men more than women (for an example, see the norms surrounding sexual conduct - what is often accepted, and even encouraged, for a man, and frowned upon for a woman, in terms of sexual activity). I could go on.

So, yeah, you think wrong.

On April 04 2014 11:27 kwizach wrote:

I didn't say biology doesn't play a role on how people make decisions. All decisions are biological/physical in the sense that our brain and our bodies are physical. Our thoughts are merely the physical operations going on inside our brain.

My point is that the structural differences in career choices between men and women are not rooted in inherent biological differences between the two sexes. Scientific research has indeed shown that the inherent biological differences between the two in terms of cognition are extremely limited (and are purely found in averages, not in actual separations between the two), that flexibility is what characterizes neural development, and that the relevant factor is the role played by the environment, i.e. by cultural variables, in the development of the individuals.