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.
I agree, there are plenty of ideologies on both sides of many debates, instead of actual science and logic.
1. Men participate in dangerous/illegal activity (or questionable affiliations with scum) more often then women, so, yeah, they're going to get killed more often. 2. True, but women attempt suicide twice as often, and are more likely to be depressed 3. But a much higher rate of sexual assault 4. Sounds like a personal problem 5. With decreased quality of life, is living longer an advantage anymore? 6. Yes it will. 7. true, but that's kind of based on indoctrinated gender roles in Western culture, which are being challenged 8. Not sure where you got this one, I disagree. 9. That's probably because most dangerous work / general labor is done by MEN 10. Please see 9. 11. People don't get into "honor" fights like the good old day: they just get shot or stabbed. 12. a large capacity for violence for a person of any gender strikes me as a sociopath 13. If you were born in the third world, you genital were extremely likely to be mutilated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation 14. Try having less homophobic male friends 15. See 14. 16. Men and women are both completely guarded and full of shit in most social situations 17. Giving the functionality of families these days (and historically) that doesn't sound like a benefit 18. Women wears shittons of product and spend thousands of dollars on their hair and wardrobe just for public approval, largely the approval of men, and ironically, the approval of women who have no adopted society's unbalanced gender roles 19. Women are called, whores, sluts, skanks, hookers, home-wreckers, and cunts and are harshly judged by their looks, by both men and women 20. Playing with other people's children does NOT sound like an advantage 21. Not true at all. Regardless of social situation or political affiliation, you'll almost always find men sticking up for other men, even if they are sympathetic to women 22. They're also judged harshly for being more sexually active than men. Seems like not being judged and having a good supply of sex is where you really want to be. 23. See 22, but as a man, I certainly can't argue much with this one... Probably because a lot of men will fuck anybody and women just have higher standards. More gender role problems. 24. Just because many children are forced to live without good fathers, doesn't mean their role isn't important. What usually happens is that in broken homes, the mom is struck with the kids, and in cases of abandonment, it's mostly the fathers leaving the children for the mom, really trapping them. And often the mom brings home unsavory "replacements" and the kids have no real father figure, and usually wind up a little fucked up.
Look, I don't give a shit, but in the interests of promoting critical thought and increasing the general level of intelligence in TL conversation, how about we do a thought exercise. I want you to reread the crap you've written, and try to use some fucking empathy and understand someone elses point of view.
Can you honestly not see the logical jujitsu you're applying when you make statements like this?
18. Women wears shittons of product and spend thousands of dollars on their hair and wardrobe just for public approval, largely the approval of men, and ironically, the approval of women who have no adopted society's unbalanced gender roles
You're forced to do things to gain attraction from the opposite sex. As a male, I have never done anything of the sort. Nope, fucking never. Oh wait, I have, because I actually live in reality. That wasn't just picking a single line you've written. This sort of hypocrisy pervades the entire post.
Let us be clear, you want females to have equal oppurtunites as men to pursue whatever desire they want. I fucking get that. A desire for liberty and equality is as basic of an instinct as it gets. What is that? Well this sounds awefully close to it.
But why can't they just accept that both choices have their advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the individuals to choose what is best for them?..
You know what else is a basic human desire? The desire for power, and these two things often intermix.
Do whatever you want. But I hope you understand that the extremes of feminism are what breed the extreme hatred of reactionaries. You'll create your own demise with this kind of groupthink bullshit.
On April 09 2012 00:23 shinosai wrote: Men aren't more regulated, because women are much more harshly judged for their choice of clothing. Women have a "choice" but this choice is a delusion because no matter what they choose they're still doing something wrong. It appears like men are more restricted, but again, this is self-imposed for the benefit of men.
It is nice being a victim, isn't it?
On April 09 2012 00:23 shinosai wrote: Some argue that men and women should equally take share in child raising, which means that yes, men could get maternity leave, too. And this happens in Europe. How awful.
My father had paternity leave 30 years ago, I live in Sweden, that is nothing strange to me. I don't argue that women should be home, I argue that it should be a choice.
On April 09 2012 00:23 shinosai wrote:Feminists don't argue that men should be forced to be stay at home dads.
In Sweden they do, the Law states that one parent can't take the whole maternity leave for themselves. Currently it is 2 months, feminists wants to increase it to 1/3 or even 50% but the public is against it since they want to be able to choose themselves.
Or technically you are not forced to be at home, but the Dads get paid to stay home with their kid for at least 2 months, this is taken from the maternity leave months.
People should put their idealogy aside when conducting research and not stick their head in the sand or let their view of the world make them delusional. Which is hard for some people to do, especially when it's about something like IQ for different human races. That's what I got from watching a few episodes. Also some people seem quite brainwashed.
watched the first 3 episodes, i think its quite funny how much the shown social researchers focus only on their "field" and pretty much don't care about other parts of science.
On April 09 2012 02:47 giesecke wrote: watched the first 3 episodes, i think its quite funny how much the shown social researchers focus only on their "field" and pretty much don't care about other parts of science.
Watched different documentaries about science, basically if they admit that their study/field is a pile of bullshit instead of trying to make it work, many of them won't have a job......
On April 09 2012 02:47 giesecke wrote: watched the first 3 episodes, i think its quite funny how much the shown social researchers focus only on their "field" and pretty much don't care about other parts of science.
Watched different documentaries about science, basically if they admit that their study/field is a pile of bullshit instead of trying to make it work, many of them won't have a job......
No, they should just change their rhetoric and stop denying obvious statistical truths because they aren't in line with their world view and also aren't judged appropriate to accept due to ideological and sometimes ethical reasons. I am constantly amazed how people can be personally offended by objective numbers being presented. It's not an opinion it's simple fact -.-
"Yes, there could be a biological component here, but the observations made could also be explained by <wage gaps, education levels, w/e> which we can see in studies X, Y, Z...".
On April 08 2012 23:01 Liquid`Drone wrote: whoa, there's a whole pile of bs espoused here, as well as a lacking understanding of feminism in norway.
1: hjernevask, while providing a useful counterpoint to the norwegian debate, is not a scientific show. the interviews of various featured scientists were massively edited with the intention of making statements sound far more extreme than they actually were. in fact, one of the "pro-nurture-trumps-nature" advocates featured in the show, caused such an uproar that the unedited interview was also published. The unedited interview actually showed that they had removed virtually every "moderate" statement he made, quipping out snippets that made him, a representant of the "mainstream norwegian point of view", seem like an absurd extremist.
2: the nature vs nurture debate is usually pretty stupid, because people from both sides of the spectrum end up hyperboling and polarizing the debate. every sane and informed person realizes that in reality, both nature and nurture are significant factors in determining how a person develops. Yet, debates tend to feature people arguing only for nature or only for nurture - but people who argue that nurture is a non-factor will still attempt to set their children in a favourable environment for them to grow up in, and people who argue that nature is a non-factor, will normally try to procreate with a mate with a positive set of genes. hjernevask is extremely guilty in this area, and that is why the show is particularly dishonest intellectually; when scientists attempted to be moderate, their interviews were edited to such a degree that they ended up being examples of this, extremely problematic polemic polarization.
3: scandinavian countries have definitely taken political feminism to another level than what is the case for most other western countries (or any other for that matter.) but this has never been about "making the genders equal", it's been about reversing a culture that reinforces archaic gender roles - and we've also come much further with regards to achieving equal possibility for both genders. affermative action isn't an "easy" discussion though, with very good arguments favouring both sides of the debate, and it's stupid to pretend that it's a clear-cut discussion with only one possible answer. like mostly all other issues of any importance, the discussion should be about finding the best possible balance. Once again, both sides of the spectrum are very much to blame for the ridiculous turns the debate occasionally takes. now I have to go and this paragraph was pretty lackluster but man, just try to not be so bombastic in opinions and statements.
Harald is a decent entertainer but a terribly biased journalist. It's one thing to focus on certain things because you don't have time to show everything in a program, another to cherry-pick soundbites and blatantly misrepresent the people you're interviewing and then pass the whole thing off as an unbiased "science program". The fact that barely any of the people in this thread that watched it picked up on this bias kinda goes to show how easy it is to twist the truth as long as you're a bit subtle about it. (To be fair it seems some haven't watched the show and would just like a place to rant about how wrong feminism and sociology is without even knowing what they stand for, strawmen gallore lol).
On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote: Okay, finished watching these videos. It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive. The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics. The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths.
just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy..,
yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote: Okay, finished watching these videos. It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive. The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics. The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths.
just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy..,
yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
and you say that based on what..? Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
This series was quite controversial when it was still new in Norway, and a big part of that was that the interviewees felt grossly misrepresented in some of the cases. Harald Eia also approached the interviews biased and used editing to build up under this bias.
Journalists are always more or less biased. The point is that these "scientists" did actually say these things, doesn't matter if he cut out other things they said since these are things you wouldn't want any scientist to say, ever. This has already been trialled and Eia won that. If he had edited their meaning he wouldn't have, he did however edit it so that their opinions seemed utterly ridiculous which is fair and happens all the time.
I don't know how "fair" I think it is, but as long as people are critical of the source and of how things are edited, and they realize that Eia could've just as easily made a series that represented the opposite point of view just by choosing different sources and editing, then whatever... it doesn't really matter in the long run anyway.
On April 08 2012 19:12 E_minus wrote: Okay, finished watching these videos. It's very curious and a bit alarming. The sociologists completely dismiss biology simply because they "feel" it's not interesting. Every time they were confronted with opposing facts they got flustered, confused and defensive. The documentary definitely highlights a problem with modern sociology. It has become a mix between science and politics. The modern society seems to be obsessed with equality, instead of building up on our strengths.
just for the record, a lot of the people interviewed have claimed that what was shown in the series misrepresented their actual views. Eia is first and foremost an entertainer, like steven colbert or whatever, so to take this series on face value is a bit iffy..,
yes, because if they were to give their 'actual' views in those interviews they would probably lose their jobs and research money.
and you say that based on what..? Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
This series was quite controversial when it was still new in Norway, and a big part of that was that the interviewees felt grossly misrepresented in some of the cases. Harald Eia also approached the interviews biased and used editing to build up under this bias.
well i based that on the fact that the 'non-scientists' (you know, regular norwegians) interviewed, knew that there were differences between the sexes. it's like everyone else but the scientists knew that there are fundamental differences between sexes so either they were following an agenda or were not 'real' scientists. in either case they were at the short end of the stick.
"non-scientist" also knew that the world was the center of the universe, and in certain cultures "non-scientists" know that women should be hidden away or have their clitoris cut off, etc.
I'm not saying that I disagree that there are differences between sexes, just that using the opinion of an average person isn't meaningful in any other way than to gauge the opinion of average people.
On April 08 2012 11:31 nttea wrote: 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.
Please. We know much more about feminist fallacies and its harmful consequences in legislation and society than you will ever see while blindfolded.
Harmful consequences? Like what?
Seriously dude, just look up some men's rights webpage, like "Man Woman Myth" or "Community of the Wrongly Accused" and you'll find examples by the dozen.
To me the most disgusting consequence is that society thinks of men as disposable subhuman animals who double as scapegoats and punchbags, and legislation reflects this belief.
I have read "men's rights" sites.. it's mostly the same angry male rhetoric that virtually always stereotypes a situation. Kind of like you do. Are you seriously suggesting that men are viewed as "subhuman scapegoats and punching bags" in Norway, even though there is quotation in terms of female representation in the public sector?
The fact of the matter is, feminism was needed to stop women being treated as second class citizens, as cum receptacles and birthing machines, and as property to be transferred from father to son-in-law at marriage. Feminism in modern, western societies have to a large degree run its course, but since we're facing an influx of people from for example islamic cultures, feminism is still very much relevant and important.
I find it extremely frustrating to be an unattractive, unemployed and unemployable male without any real purpose in life - which is as a matter of fact the profile of most feminism-hating men (seriously) - but I've realized that it's not feminism's fault that my life sucks. I've in fact realized that I am very much a post-feminist man, in that I want what women used to want in men; I want a woman that is successful, culturally powerful and economically well-off. I don't want to be a provider. How is that a bad thing? (besides how I'm setting myself up for failure)
So after watching all parts very carefully i have some conclusions.
Norway sience seems to be very biased towards non-equality and needs to be reformed. We arent born equal at all there are genes different to others and those genes have a hughe impact at how and who we are.
Our Brains might be build equal but that doesnt mean that it works the same way. We can adopt untill a certain point, but that does not mean we are not tending to a certain direction.
People who think we all are absolutely the same when we are born can cause the same harm as people one "race" is supirior to another.
We need to accept the difference and look how we can make the world a better place from that perspective instead of trying to push people into a society where persons are threatend equal (with the same demands and the same tasks)
This pushes me from far left to far right but still i think its importand that the goal i would wanna reach here is more happines for each individual.
On April 09 2012 04:36 Chilling5pr33 wrote: So after watching all parts very carefully i have some conclusions.
making any kind of conclusions based on a tv show made by an entertainer is an unwise prospect.
Norway sience seems to be very biased towards non-equality and needs to be reformed. We arent born equal at all there are genes different to others and those genes have a hughe impact at how and who we are.
Again, Eia is being very dishonest in how he edits and juxtaposes these interviews. Like someone in the norwegian media said about the "dumb" scientists presented in this series; if no one hears you make good arguments, it's difficult to imagine you have good arguments.
I do agree that the scientists Eia presents here come off as exceptionally stupid, but again, don't take everything on face value
Norway sience seems to be very biased towards non-equality and needs to be reformed. We arent born equal at all there are genes different to others and those genes have a hughe impact at how and who we are.
Again, Eia is being very dishonest in how he edits and juxtaposes these interviews. Like someone in the norwegian media said about the "dumb" scientists presented in this series; if no one hears you make good arguments, it's difficult to imagine you have good arguments.
I do agree that the scientists Eia presents here come off as exceptionally stupid, but again, don't take everything on face value
Im usually not easy to influence but all prresented facts do make a lot of sence and are easily observed if you look carefully. We would love to see everything as totally equal but the world isnt build like this at all. Yes this might be editid but it doesnt change the fact that i ignored a lot of facts presented here before. I observed a lot of these things before and i couldnt really put them together properly since i was a little biased.
If you need to Ignore stuff for your sience your sience make no sence.
I also just have to say that I don't think most people are aware of how differently girls and boys are treated from the very moment they're born. In fact, typically, what happens with a newborn girl is that the girl is immediately embraced. Whereas a newborn boy will be showcased to the world. Basically, from the very moment of birth, girls are told; "the world is a dangerous place and I will protect you for it", whereas boys are told "this is yours to conquer". There's no question that this influences future behavior, the question is, to what degree do these (sub)conscious efforts to differentiate genders influence them in the future compared with the differences caused by hormonal and physical differences?
And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against eachother. You could easily make the case that periody females are also even more pissy than they'd otherwise be because of the societal expectation/acceptance of period-related anger. there's no science backing up either argument, it's all more or less "assumption founded on some underlying truthishly factoid". What I'm essentially saying here is; yes, there are obviously biological differences between the genders. There's no question about that. But there are also obviously differences related to upbringing and expected behavior from the genders, and there is absolutely no way anyone - and even less chance any of us - can accurately try to pinpoint which gender-based differences are caused by biology or society. And thus, it's absolutely laughable when people write gibberish like, "biology is the sole reason why males dominate mathematics and comedy and *insert other field*".
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also just have to say that I don't think most people are aware of how differently girls and boys are treated from the very moment they're born. In fact, typically, what happens with a newborn girl is that the girl is immediately embraced. Whereas a newborn boy will be showcased to the world. Basically, from the very moment of birth, girls are told; "the world is a dangerous place and I will protect you for it", whereas boys are told "this is yours to conquer". There's no question that this influences future behavior, the question is, to what degree do these (sub)conscious efforts to differentiate genders influence them in the future compared with the differences caused by hormonal and physical differences?
And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against eachother. You could easily make the case that periody females are also even more pissy than they'd otherwise be because of the societal expectation/acceptance of period-related anger. there's no science backing up either argument, it's all more or less "assumption founded on some underlying truthishly factoid". What I'm essentially saying here is; yes, there are obviously biological differences between the genders. There's no question about that. But there are also obviously differences related to upbringing and expected behavior from the genders, and there is absolutely no way anyone - and even less chance any of us - can accurately try to pinpoint which gender-based differences are caused by biology or society. And thus, it's absolutely laughable when people write gibberish like, "biology is the sole reason why males dominate mathematics and comedy and *insert other field*".
Are you saying that there is no evidence stating that the hormons released during periods makes you edgy and "pissy"?
It's a fact that hormones released during PMS, pregnancy et cetera makes you more emotional. This is just you ignoring facts based on scientific research just as the gender studies researchers in the first documentary.To state that it could be because of cultural expectations is just a theory without a trace of proof. I have to board a flight so I can't say more on the subject but you are ignoring facts.
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also just have to say that I don't think most people are aware of how differently girls and boys are treated from the very moment they're born. In fact, typically, what happens with a newborn girl is that the girl is immediately embraced. Whereas a newborn boy will be showcased to the world.
Actually thats all this is about and its shown that this impact isnt as big as we expect
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results.
Maybe we do know... And for me it makes sence that there is alot of genetical difference. As well as it makes sence to have different interests as well as skills.
Im not saying someone is supirior over the other gender but it would be stupid to make us equal and evolution isnt stupid.
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against eachother. You could easily make the case that periody females are also even more pissy than they'd otherwise be because of the societal expectation/acceptance of period-related anger. there's no science backing up either argument, it's all more or less "assumption founded on some underlying truthishly factoid". What I'm essentially saying here is; yes, there are obviously biological differences between the genders. There's no question about that. But there are also obviously differences related to upbringing and expected behavior from the genders, and there is absolutely no way anyone - and even less chance any of us - can accurately try to pinpoint which gender-based differences are caused by biology or society. And thus, it's absolutely laughable when people write gibberish like, "biology is the sole reason why males dominate mathematics and comedy and *insert other field*".
I dont think there is a good chance to "gauge" those differences. If you go into genetics as well as hormons we have a lot to discover and some of the question will be solved there. Actually i think Psychology takes himself much too importand. If everything points towards one asuption you at least have to analyze this.
Your examples with the periodic girls doesnt make any sence to me. you refer to it as a self fullfilling profersy but that would mean all girls are dicks all the time and they only release it when they feel no one can be mad at them ^^
I really enjoyed watching these videos and I found them to be very interesting.
Although the persons that were interviewed were scientists, nearly everyone of them had different opinions on the matters presented in these films. What I enjoyed the most was when these views were confronted with each others how the respective scientists reacted.
Of course the show paints all Norwegian scientists in the same light and wants to proof a certain point, bu I mean it successfully does so, even if it is of coarse exaggerated and what not. I think it is, at least for me, an interesting question to answer what are the boundaries what is decided by nature and how far can this be pushed or altered by society ? The question raised in the film about education and intelligence was very interesting. That children of intelligent people tend to do better in school then children that had not so intelligent parents. Is it because they have money ? Is it because they can help their offspring ? Is it for the most part biologically ? Is it a combination and if yes what factors are the most important and how do they correlate ?
one of the ways the series is intellectually dishonest is that it sets up people like Jørgen Lorentzen as an expert on gender, where his field of expertise is actually literary theory. When he gets contrasted against an evolutionary psychologist, that of course proves to be a mismatch. And based on reading other stuff Lorentzen has written, he does come off as a complete tool.
So Eia is basically using experts to discuss his side of the argument, and in some cases people with no real expertise at all on the subject to discuss the other side. But as a viewer we're generally not given an insight into the interviewee's expertise.
On April 09 2012 05:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: I also just have to say that I don't think most people are aware of how differently girls and boys are treated from the very moment they're born. In fact, typically, what happens with a newborn girl is that the girl is immediately embraced. Whereas a newborn boy will be showcased to the world. Basically, from the very moment of birth, girls are told; "the world is a dangerous place and I will protect you for it", whereas boys are told "this is yours to conquer". There's no question that this influences future behavior, the question is, to what degree do these (sub)conscious efforts to differentiate genders influence them in the future compared with the differences caused by hormonal and physical differences?
And the answer is, we don't know. We can plausibly assume that people (both genders) are more likely to behave in a manner that they perceive will yield them the best results. Thus, we can plausibly argue that difference in physical strenght is likely to lead to more males resorting to violence when dealing with conflict than what the case is for females. We can also assume that hormonal differences create differences in behavior, e.g. periody girls being pissy.
However, there's absolutely no way we can try to like, gauge these differences against eachother. You could easily make the case that periody females are also even more pissy than they'd otherwise be because of the societal expectation/acceptance of period-related anger. there's no science backing up either argument, it's all more or less "assumption founded on some underlying truthishly factoid". What I'm essentially saying here is; yes, there are obviously biological differences between the genders. There's no question about that. But there are also obviously differences related to upbringing and expected behavior from the genders, and there is absolutely no way anyone - and even less chance any of us - can accurately try to pinpoint which gender-based differences are caused by biology or society. And thus, it's absolutely laughable when people write gibberish like, "biology is the sole reason why males dominate mathematics and comedy and *insert other field*".
Are you saying that there is no evidence stating that the hormons released during periods makes you edgy and "pissy"?
It's a fact that hormones released during PMS, pregnancy et cetera makes you more emotional. This is just you ignoring facts based on scientific research just as the gender studies researchers in the first documentary.To state that it could be because of cultural expectations is just a theory without a trace of proof. I have to board a flight so I can't say more on the subject but you are ignoring facts.
No, I actually said that while we know that hormonal differences create differences in behavior (e.g. with the pms example), there's no way of accurately determine to what degree the behavioral differences are purely hormonal or a mix between biological and societal. I'm fairly certain that, if society imposed a law stating that periody girls were not allowed to be angry without adequate reason (yes obviously this is way out there in hypothetical-land), and that the punishment was public flogging, then hey, girls would actually be significantly less angry during their periods. Meanwhile, the statements that "it's okay that you're pissed off, it's just your period", or worse, the "are you angry? you must be on your period" are reinforcing period-pissy behavior. If you read the posts I've made in this thread, you'd see that I'm not arguing for the biology or the society being more important argument, I'm saying that both matter and that it's impossible to determine to what degree what matters. My main issue is with the people who argue that either definitely trumps the other - I guess that might make it seem like I'm arguing the pro-nurture point of view, but that's only the case because more "pro-nature" believers are more bombastic in their statements.
EPT
