On April 11 2012 19:31 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't really feel like digging for a probably nonexistent statistic wrt how many norwegian scholars believe that biology has no effect on gender. But I've yet to meet a single norwegian who actually believes this, and partially due to hjernevask, I've observed/read multiple discussions. Never has any person made the claim that biology has no effect or nearly no effect on gender. What has been claimed is that biology is given too much of the credit for certain differences between genders (such as "having a scientific and inquisitive mind" being attributed to male biology), and while this cannot be proven either way, I don't think it's a far-fetched claim. Everyone in norway who actually have an opinion, hold the opinion that there's a combination of nature and nurture. It is true that norwegians will probably, on average, put slightly more emphasis on the nurture side of the equation, but that's just like, a pretty arbitrary and small difference in assumed percentages and imo, not worth focusing much on.
I was thinking something more along the lines of a literature review in a Norweigian scholarly journal, or perhaps a news article on the documentary that corroborated your claim. However, your anecdotal experience is fair enough.
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.
Dude, why you hate women so much? Whats wrong with feminism (= equality)
On April 11 2012 17:53 Kickboxer wrote: Yeah that's why men really understand women, and women really understand men.
O wait sometimes talking to the missis seems like I'm encountering an alien from another dimension. Guess I should have played with my sister's barbie dolls more often when I was a kid. O wait, I did. They had really nice tits ^_^
I don't know, I've talked to many men (I'm a man myself) that I can't understand at all either.
Freaking interesting. As a student in sociology myself, I always thought gender studies were full of shit. I will watch all of that with a great interest.
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.
Dude, why you hate women so much?
How does anything I've said suggest that?
On April 11 2012 19:47 leveller wrote: Whats wrong with feminism (= equality)
Because feminism ≠ equality. How does requiring companies to have 40% female board members (when there's a smaller number of women with the prerequisite experience) work out to equality in your book? How about maintaining that women cannot rape men, and then including that in the definition of rape under the Violence Against Women Act? Or insisting that sexism against men and female privilege don't exist? Supporting the extremely slanted family court system which completely ignores father's rights? Banning paternity tests to protect women who engage in paternity fraud? Advocating the elimination of the male sex? Refusing to acknowledge that nearly half of domestic violence victims are men? Perpetuating the ridiculously sexist notion that women are agency-less objects that are acted upon, while men are responsible for everything? Calling everyone who disagrees with them a misogynist, like you are?
Feminism is nothing more than an ideological special interest group that often promotes misandry, elevates women's interests above men's, and engages in statistically challenged "scholarship" and pathological lying to promote an agenda.
I don't support feminism because I'm an egalitarian.
The thing is, being a man or a woman is part biological, but not certainly only biological. The biggest problem around that thing is that people always want to cut between biological and sociological explanation - from one side to another, being feminists or any other thing.
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.
Quotas like these are disgusting to me. What don't you just make a quotha that you need x number of redheads, blacks, tall people, short people, fat people, thin people, blue eyed and brown eyed people must be working at a given profession?
Why would women need special treatment? I ask: "Where is the equality in that?!".
My mom's uncle works at a very high position in the Scandinavian postal system and numourous times when he is working in Sweden or Norway he's had to turn down men who were perfect for the job in favor of women who were not. Simply because of these insane laws. It's just wrong.
If you want things to be equal you shouldn't give advantages to someone because of their gender.
Anyway, great show! Enjoyed the first episode! Those Norwegians working in the gender equality department seem more and more like extremist to me who cannot see beyond their own beleif regardless of scientific evidence.
hole crap that first episode was painful. Watching the social scientists squirm, while still not budging an inch, it was like watching an episode of Frasier where someone is making an idiot of himself and it hurts to watch. Fascinating stuff, thank you for linking.
Of course I have only spent a couple weeks in Norway, not long enough to know how well their views line up with the average Norwegian, so this is not a comment on an entire nation. But I certainly feel secure in stating that the people interviewed for this video are far out in left field, away from reality.
Feminism is equal to communism in the fact that they want everybody to suddenly change their world views and to do this they use brainwashing and sloganeering, ignoring the fact that people are born with different characteristics and that has to make a little inequality along the road. Of course this argument is used by white supremacists and what not to continue what is an unequal society but the opposite in feminism/communism brainwashing it's also true.
Some of you are talking about the early levels which merely push for a bare minimum of equality. Others are criticizing higher levels of feminism which are more reminiscent of hardcore affirmative action. Clarify what you mean by feminism before you start arguing about it and it will save everyone a lot of time.
On April 12 2012 00:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote: There are different "levels" of feminism.
Some of you are talking about the early levels which merely push for a bare minimum of equality. Others are criticizing higher levels of feminism which are more reminiscent of hardcore affirmative action. Clarify what you mean by feminism before you start arguing about it and it will save everyone a lot of time.
Agree that being more clear would be good since it's such a vague term, but for same reason it's almost impossible to define. The type of feminism my mother belonged to barely has anything in common any modern feminism for example.
Men and women are not the same is my honest opinion. We are not the same, and as a result there are different things expected of us, such as females giving birth and males giving the life. It's interesting to see it from the documentary point of view that we are brainwashed into having boy and girl gender roles. I always thought that since both of our genders were given the opportunity to do what we want, we are equal, but I guess it isn't the case if we are raised "brainwashed" by cultural influences.
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.
This posts represent a lot of the strange opinions people have about social sciences. By some, they aren't considered to be science. Why is that?
And by the way, of course there are a lot of crazy feminists in the world. It's just ridiculous..
I watched all of the episodes, and thought they were pretty good. I feel like people are going to argue the nature, nurture argument until the end of time. Even if we could find proof either way, people are still going to believe what they want, or try and force their agenda.
On April 12 2012 00:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote: There are different "levels" of feminism.
Some of you are talking about the early levels which merely push for a bare minimum of equality. Others are criticizing higher levels of feminism which are more reminiscent of hardcore affirmative action. Clarify what you mean by feminism before you start arguing about it and it will save everyone a lot of time.
I call BS. When you have a "big tent" social movement where the members accept each other, including extremists, then it's fair to characterize them and their ideologies as a group.
To use an analogy, Republicans allow both moderates and extremists within a certain spectrum to identify as Republicans. Consequently, it's fair to characterize all of these members and their ideologies as a group. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Republicans for representing the wealthy, the religious, or the elderly, because these are all accepted as part of the Republican Party by other Republicans. Likewise, Republicans bear responsibility for including members such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. As a political group, the Republican Party also works to advance the policies of its entire membership.
Similarly, feminism as a social movement accepts radical feminists (including those who advocate the elimination of men) as part of their group. And as a political entity, feminism has accomplished and continues to accomplish some terrible things throughout the world, such as the erasure of male rape/DV victims, the criminalization of paternity testing, and establishment of sexist quotas. The most powerful and institutionally entrenched feminists (politicians, women's studies professors, etc) also tend to be the most extreme. Put simply, feminism as a group is morally bankrupt, and individual feminists who are more moderate don't make that characterization a strawman.
No one is attacking a straw feminist. All of the things being criticized are actual criticisms of feminists as a group.
To use an analogy, the Tea Party members are not straw Republicans, because they are accepted as Republicans. Until the Republican Party disowns/disavows them, attacking their ideas as representative of Republicans is perfectly fair game.
Likewise, feminists do not excommunicate members/factions who are misandrist, and some of the core aspects of feminist ideology such as patriarchy theory are misandrist. Accordingly, it's not a strawman to say that feminists are misandrist. If feminists don't want to be seen as misandrist, statistically challenged pathological liars, then they better start condemning all the members who act that way.
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.
This posts represent a lot of the strange opinions people have about social sciences. By some, they aren't considered to be science. Why is that?
Just so you don't have any misconceptions, I have a social science degree, and I certainly do consider social science to be a science.
All science can be influenced and biased by ideology. The history of the natural sciences is also filled with examples of ideology taking precedence over empirical science.
Social science in particular is only different because as a more subjective science it's particularly susceptible to being corrupted by biases rather than facts. That doesn't mean that it's not legitimate science, but it does mean that we must be extra vigilant in watching for attempts to subvert facts with ideology.
On April 12 2012 00:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote: There are different "levels" of feminism.
Some of you are talking about the early levels which merely push for a bare minimum of equality. Others are criticizing higher levels of feminism which are more reminiscent of hardcore affirmative action. Clarify what you mean by feminism before you start arguing about it and it will save everyone a lot of time.
I call BS. When you have a "big tent" social movement where the members accept each other, including extremists, then it's fair to characterize them and their ideologies as a group.
To use an analogy, Republicans allow both moderates and extremists within a certain spectrum to identify as Republicans. Consequently, it's fair to characterize all of these members and their ideologies as a group. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Republicans for representing the wealthy, the religious, or the elderly, because these are all accepted as part of the Republican Party by other Republicans. Likewise, Republicans bear responsibility for including members such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and George W. As a political group, the Republican Party also works to advance the policies of its entire membership.
Similarly, feminism as a social movement accepts radical feminists (including those who advocate the elimination of men) as part of their group. And as a political entity, feminism has accomplished and continues to accomplish some terrible things throughout the world, such as the erasure of male rape/DV victims, the criminalization of paternity testing, and establishment of sexist quotas. The most powerful and institutionally entrenched feminists (politicians, women's studies professors, etc) also tend to be the most extreme. Put simply, feminism as a group is morally bankrupt, and individual feminists who are more moderate don't make that characterization a strawman.
No one is attacking a straw feminist. All of the things being criticized are actual criticisms of feminists as a group.
To use an analogy, the Tea Party members are not straw Republicans, because they are accepted as Republicans. Until the Republican Party disowns/disavows them, attacking their ideas as representative of Republicans is perfectly fair game.
Likewise, feminists do not excommunicate members/factions who are misandrist, and some of the core aspects of feminist ideology such as patriarchy theory are misandrist. Accordingly, it's not a strawman to say that feminists are misandrist. If feminists don't want to be seen as misandrist, statistically challenged pathological liars, then they better start condemning all the members who act that way.
Sunprince, I love you. The unfortunate part of this entire debate is that outside of a very select group of discussion platforms (this forum included), a great deal of women will simply ignore anyone who indicts ANY aspect of feminism. Very troubling stuff methinks.
EPT
