On April 08 2012 06:00 sunprince wrote: Considering that Norway is a feminist stronghold, I'm not surprised that social science there (particularly gender studies) is dominated by ideology rather than science.
I would not in any way say it is a feminist stronghold. But you can think what you will.
Of course, this runs counter to the feminist narrative of oppression and victimization, so they'll still insist that Norway is a horribly misogynistic patriarchy.
So because you've read a single artist in New York times you're suddenly an expert on the subject?
Thanks for ignoring the wikipedia article. You can also easily use Google to find that Norway is considered a feminist "success".
If you disagree with me, why don't you back up your position with a shred of evidence?
On April 08 2012 08:32 Rockztar wrote: Gotta say man you come off as quite a bit ignorant. It gave me a good laugh though. :p
Says the idiot who hasn't demonstrated the least bit of intellectual discourse.
On April 08 2012 08:32 Rockztar wrote: I don't think you understand Scandinavian culture in the slightest and should probably stop making comments on it.
I don't think you understand anything, so you should stop making comments on anything. In fact, stop visiting TL.
On April 08 2012 08:35 AutomatonOmega wrote: I'm going to watch the fuck out of this. Thanks for posting!
#2
Already saw the first episode (unlike some people here, starting a "discussion" about feminism without having seen even five minutes of the videos...). Very interesting documentary concerning scientific research in our modern societies. Thanks again for posting this.
(presumably there's a somewhat smaller percentage of men as well, not withstanding some radical feminist assertions that men cannot be feminist)
Love this. Because you were born a man, you can't be feminist. Such misandry!
On topic, he makes a good point about legislative activism, or legislating feminist goals. I don't know if polling would yield the same result, so no clue if its a minority feminist tyranny (pardon the term) or just a widespread acceptance of feminist ideals.
On April 08 2012 08:33 Conti wrote: 13. If I was born in North America since WWII, my genitals were almost certainly not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.
Implying that male circumcision is some kind of "mutilation" is just dumb. Doing so in a list purportedly listing the things some women do not have to suffer is just fucking offensive, as female circumcision actually is mutilation and forced upon women in many countries in the world still. [/QUOTE]
Circumcision certainly fits many definitions of mutiliation. In fact, the WHO's definition of female genital mutilation is, "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."
Any injury to the genitals not done for medical reasons. That would certainly apply to males having foreskin removed if you made this definition sex neutral. There has only recently been medical arguments for male circumcision and they are terrible at best and frequently ignore the significant harm done in the process. Wearing condoms and using soap are vastly more effective than forced, often ritualistic or aesthetic removal of portions of male genitals (One of the most common reasons for circumcision in the USA is tradition. People often respond they want their sons to look like their fathers).
Sunprince was\is right to oppose large swaths of feminism and point out society's treatment of men, he just got a little out of control with the posts.
On April 08 2012 06:00 sunprince wrote: Considering that Norway is a feminist stronghold, I'm not surprised that social science there (particularly gender studies) is dominated by ideology rather than science.
I hope you're not serious.
Like it's any different in Denmark. Things like scientific studies or facts seem to be treated as nuisances rather than the base for constructive debate.
However I wouldn't say it's related specifically to feminism. Environmental issues, immigration/intergration problems, etc. are treated exactly the same... :/
On April 08 2012 06:16 JustPassingBy wrote: I never understood why some people want everything to be equal on average. At least I do not blame society for manipulating me into having "boyish" interestes (like gaming) or share some character traits that people with the same migrational background like me seem to have.
People who don't want responsibility for their actions. One of the central tenets of feminist ideology is that you can't blame women for anything whatsoever.
If women chose not to make as much money than men (e.g. working less, choosing easier/safer professions, etc.), then you would have to accept the wage gap or glass ceiling as legitimate. Same goes for other things like why there are more men in engineering. Feminists insist that society is to blame because it allows them to demand things like affirmative action for women, quotas for female politicians, etc. Not that this would be wrong if the idea of society's responsibility was based on empirical science, but feminists abandoned science long ago.
Ironically, the notion that women don't have the ability to make their own decisions but are instead purely the product of social conditioning is one of the most regressive, misogynistic notions I can possibly concieve of. It completely denies women their agency and feeds into the traditional script that men are the actors, while women are merely acted upon. Of course, feminist inconsistency and sexism against both men and women isn't exactly news.
Actually, in Norway the number of females going into "male-dominated" studies like physics and computer science has risen considerably. Does that perhaps have something to do with the measures Norway has taken the last decades when it comes to equality? So numbers agree with the feminists who says society has a lot of blame, which facts can you bring to the table?
Edit: Also, there is a difference in saying women's decisionmaking is purely the product of social conditioning, and saying social conditioning has an effect.
On April 08 2012 07:47 gruff wrote: \Most sane feminist argues against salary inquality in the same profession and not in the large group of men and women all profession included. It's not secret women sometimes get lower salary for doing the same kind of job, often rationalized with the possibility of them getting pregnant. Your and one of the poster earlier are strawmanning that issue a bit. I'm not saying I neccesarily argree with that point but at least address the real points.
No. Feminists often cite the bullshit statistic that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Where does that number come from? The unadjusted wage gap, which simply compares the median male income to the median female income with no adjusting whatsoever.
In reality, the US Department of Labor found that once you adjust for relevant factors, there is no statistically significant wage gap. Simply put, the wage gap is a bullshit myth that feminists use to justify their sexist policies.
Yes. As I said, I'm not arguing for or against but you are strawmanning the issue when you bring up wage equality across professions since that is not what most notable feminist get hung up about. Also I read the summary of that pdf and it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be (it's certainly not the "simply put" you use to discount any counter arguement). It says the factors accont for the majority but not neccesarily all unequality. I agree that most feminist use bullshit stats though, but that doesn't neccesarily mean every point they are arguing is bullshit.
The person you quoted never uses "all" in a specific way with regards to the bullshit statistics, but rather of all professions. The person uses words such as "often" or "most" "likely" which none of these words mean to say "One Hundred Percent" or 100% or "All". Which is basically what you're saying in the quote and he did say " often cite... " but not "All cite"
On April 08 2012 06:51 nymfaw wrote: Feminist movement in Norway is really dumb. While they fight for equal salary levels, women are still not required to participate in military service and can, if they volunteer, despite failing required tests get a payed military education just because they can fill the quota. And on top of that they require special treatment such as not undressing completely nude when ordered to. (no pun intended here, actually happened newspaper linknewspaperlink 2)
If they want things to be equal, everything should be equal right? Sorry for being semi-OT, just a thing I find really annoying.
I see this point being made a lot, and it is terribly missguided. Yes, they want equality because society is not gender-equal, at all. When equality starts closing in, you can start presenting those cases where there's inequality on the other side, but when males are favored in 9 out of 10 cases, those things doesn't really have the same priority do they?
Western countries are definetely doing pretty good when it comes to this issue though, so in the near future you can perhaps justily present it, but not yet, not yet..
On April 08 2012 07:47 gruff wrote: \Most sane feminist argues against salary inquality in the same profession and not in the large group of men and women all profession included. It's not secret women sometimes get lower salary for doing the same kind of job, often rationalized with the possibility of them getting pregnant. Your and one of the poster earlier are strawmanning that issue a bit. I'm not saying I neccesarily argree with that point but at least address the real points.
No. Feminists often cite the bullshit statistic that women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Where does that number come from? The unadjusted wage gap, which simply compares the median male income to the median female income with no adjusting whatsoever.
In reality, the US Department of Labor found that once you adjust for relevant factors, there is no statistically significant wage gap. Simply put, the wage gap is a bullshit myth that feminists use to justify their sexist policies.
Yes. As I said, I'm not arguing for or against but you are strawmanning the issue when you bring up wage equality across professions since that is not what most notable feminist get hung up about. Also I read the summary of that pdf and it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be (it's certainly not the "simply put" you use to discount any counter arguement). It says the factors accont for the majority but not neccesarily all unequality. I agree that most feminist use bullshit stats though, but that doesn't neccesarily mean every point they are arguing is bullshit.
The person you quoted never uses "all" in a specific way with regards to the bullshit statistics, but rather of all professions. The person uses words such as "often" or "most" "likely" which none of these words mean to say "One Hundred Percent" or 100% or "All". Which is basically what you're saying in the quote and he did say " often cite... " but not "All cite"
You clearly didn't read his or my post well enough (or maybe I expressed myself poorly). His ending line nullifies that regardless and he didn't address the points I was making. In any case I rather watch the gstl than continuing this debate. Have fun folks.
On April 08 2012 07:59 sunprince wrote: Women have far more privileges than merely looks. Here's a partial list of female privileges:
As a woman: 1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man. 2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man. 3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man. 4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry. 5. I will probably live longer than the average man. 6. Society probably won't see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise. 7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man. 8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is. 9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s. 10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s. 11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my status or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner. 12. If I lack the capacity for violence, this generally won't be seen as a damning personal deficiency. 13. If I was born in North America since WWII, my genitals were almost certainly not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia. 14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease. 15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how they will interpret it or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question. 16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people. 17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family. 18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’. 19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question. 20. If I interact with other people’s children, I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted. 21. I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of gender demands. 22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man. 23. From my late teens through menopause, it's easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than for a man. 24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.
After quickly going over these examples, I find that at least half of them are a reality because of men. Yes you are less likely to be murdered, but doesn't man also by far commit the most murders? So actually, women are not responsible for that inequality. I could go over more of them but you get the picture. The inequalities sane feminists argue about, are the ones that have established themselves because of male dominence over the centuries.
Also, let me be clear, I'm not a supporter of the extremist feminists that want EVERYTHING to be equal.
I don't need to watch these videos to know that there is much propaganda and artificial control in modern educational and scientific communities, particularly in the field of "sociology," which barely equates with science... but I will watch the videos nonetheless because I find the subject interesting.
The problem is that so much "good" science has to get thrown out with the bad simply because people have to be such zealots with their ideology. There is so much good science that gets thrown out the window, and so many good scientists who get ostracized and isolated, simply because their work seems to contradict the modern holy cows.
It seems whoever achieves the majority, whether conservative or liberal, ends up abusing their position and forcing their views on the minority, instead of adhering to the rigorous skepticism demanded of scientific pursuits.
By the way, this thread reminded me of this comic by xkcd.
On April 08 2012 06:16 JustPassingBy wrote: I never understood why some people want everything to be equal on average. At least I do not blame society for manipulating me into having "boyish" interestes (like gaming) or share some character traits that people with the same migrational background like me seem to have.
People who don't want responsibility for their actions. One of the central tenets of feminist ideology is that you can't blame women for anything whatsoever.
If women chose not to make as much money than men (e.g. working less, choosing easier/safer professions, etc.), then you would have to accept the wage gap or glass ceiling as legitimate. Same goes for other things like why there are more men in engineering. Feminists insist that society is to blame because it allows them to demand things like affirmative action for women, quotas for female politicians, etc. Not that this would be wrong if the idea of society's responsibility was based on empirical science, but feminists abandoned science long ago.
Ironically, the notion that women don't have the ability to make their own decisions but are instead purely the product of social conditioning is one of the most regressive, misogynistic notions I can possibly concieve of. It completely denies women their agency and feeds into the traditional script that men are the actors, while women are merely acted upon. Of course, feminist inconsistency and sexism against both men and women isn't exactly news.
Actually, in Norway the number of females going into "male-dominated" studies like physics and computer science has risen considerably. Does that perhaps have something to do with the measures Norway has taken the last decades when it comes to equality? So numbers agree with the feminists who says society has a lot of blame, which facts can you bring to the table?
Edit: Also, there is a difference in saying women's decisionmaking is purely the product of social conditioning, and saying social conditioning has an effect.
If you had watched the documentary you'd have seen that there's data saying that there are fewer women going into male dominated proffesions than 15 years ago and vice versa. It seems that women and men does not really want to go into proffesions that does not appeal to them. You'd probably do good in watching it.
On April 08 2012 10:29 Chromodoris wrote: If you had watched the documentary you'd have seen that there's data saying that there are fewer women going into male dominated proffesions than 15 years ago and vice versa. It seems that women and men does not really want to go into proffesions that does not appeal to them. You'd probably do good in watching it.
Well I can see how that would seem to contradict what I said there, but my point was rather that by trying to remove the stigma that has been present in those fields of study, the number of female students in them have gone up. I'm not saying I believe in a totally equal society we will see 50/50 men and women working at a car-mech store or whatever. I am completely aware that there are professions that are more appealing to men and vise versa. But would you say in the year of say 1500 that women were not interested in writing?
I'm just saying if you make an effort to remove the preconceptions that have established themselves when it comes particularly to choice of studies, you will see those strict lines loosen up a bit. That has been proven, and that was my earlier point. Not neccessarily 50/50 though, and that is totally fine.
Also I saw this when it aired but I thought the show was more about biological heritage vs environment?
On April 08 2012 07:59 sunprince wrote: Women have far more privileges than merely looks. Here's a partial list of female privileges:
As a woman: 1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man. 2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man. 3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man. 4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry. 5. I will probably live longer than the average man. 6. Society probably won't see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise. 7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man. 8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is. 9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s. 10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s. 11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my status or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner. 12. If I lack the capacity for violence, this generally won't be seen as a damning personal deficiency. 13. If I was born in North America since WWII, my genitals were almost certainly not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia. 14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease. 15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how they will interpret it or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question. 16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people. 17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family. 18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’. 19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question. 20. If I interact with other people’s children, I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted. 21. I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of gender demands. 22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man. 23. From my late teens through menopause, it's easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than for a man. 24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.
After quickly going over these examples, I find that at least half of them are a reality because of men. Yes you are less likely to be murdered, but doesn't man also by far commit the most murders? So actually, women are not responsible for that inequality. I could go over more of them but you get the picture. The inequalities sane feminists argue about, are the ones that have established themselves because of male dominence over the centuries.
Also, let me be clear, I'm not a supporter of the extremist feminists that want EVERYTHING to be equal.
"Because of men"? That's an extremely narrow-minded statement there...basically every single inequality stems from biological roles effecting social roles.
I'm not saying women are "responsible" for those listed inequalities. But it's equally as stupid to say that men are "responsible" for being the dominant gender.
Too many guys in this thread on a crusade to defame feminism, for fuck sake go read up on actual feminist ideology instead of making up your own based on girls you don't like.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yrt5w.png)
