Here is a fixed post with more detail and direct links to videos.
Hjernevask (Brainwash) is a Norwegian science documentary on the subject of nature vs. nurture which aired in 2010. When it aired it created a lot of controversy in Norway over the politicization of social sciences. It has recently been translated and released with English subtitles for free online by the producer.
Norway: Brainwashed Science on TV Creates Storm
The heat is generated by Harald Eia, a TV-comedian turned science reporter, who is exposing social scientists and gender researchers in a not very flattering manner in a TV series called «Brainwashed». The uproar started already last summer, more than half a year before the series was ready. Some social scientists who had been interviewed by Eia, went out in the press to say they felt they had been fooled, tricked to expose themselves by «dubious» tactics.
What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community. Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments. To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement.
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 dont understand why you bring this up now though. It is a bit old imo and have been discussed to death already.
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.
Watching part of the first one, and the initial thing that strikes me is that he is trying to equate a company's workforce with gender equality. Just because genders are considered equal and capable of doing such work doesn't logically follow that they will.
We'll see how the rest of this episode goes, and the others.
On April 08 2012 06:06 albis wrote: i tried the watch the first one. got bored 20min into it. seamed fairly common knowledge. maybe the other ones will be better
You should really watch the whole thing because in the first 20 minutes of video he shows what is believed to be common knowledge and from that he tries to find scientific answers with empiric studies the proves them but he just shows that, according to what the scientists he meets say, there is a biological reasoning to the differences in male and female interest. I suggest you power through the boredom and watch it whole. It's definitely worth it.
I just saw the first one and it was pretty good. Will definitely check the other ones!
On April 08 2012 06:05 saynomore wrote: I dont understand why you bring this up now though. It is a bit old imo and have been discussed to death already.
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.
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.
On April 08 2012 06:05 saynomore wrote: I dont understand why you bring this up now though. It is a bit old imo and have been discussed to death already.
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.
The English subtitling is recent and I couldn't find any discussion of it on Teamliquid when I searched. I think most of the world outside Norway still hasn't heard of it.
On April 08 2012 06:06 albis wrote: i tried the watch the first one. got bored 20min into it. seamed fairly common knowledge. maybe the other ones will be better
Sounds like you didn't stick around until he got to the part where he debunks the premises set up in the first part of the episode. You should try watching a whole episode to see how he works through each issue.
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.
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.
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.
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 is far from an isolated case of ideology/personal gain/etc taking priority over actual science. Although it seems to be popping up in social science even more. It's too bad, but at least people are speaking up about it :/
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.
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.
On April 08 2012 06:40 Roe wrote: How many of these people do you think there are?
Without conducting any sort of study on the matter, any answer I give would be speculative at best. I'm also inferring negative implications about people's ideologies, so people wouldn't readily admit to them either, making a study somewhat difficult. I also doubt that most people realize that their ideologies are convenient to their causes (feminists aren't alone in this, as many ideologies have self-interested beliefs due to human cognitive biases).
According to a Time/CNN study in 2009, 24% of American women identify as feminist (presumably there's a somewhat smaller percentage of men as well, not withstanding some radical feminist assertions that men cannot be feminist). My personal knowledge/experiences with feminists and the gender blogosphere suggest that only a minority of feminists consciously take the extreme view that all gender differences are social rather than biological. However, these extremists tend to be those who are institutionally entrenched (writers, professors, politicians, and other leaders), and the nature of feminism as a "big tent" movement ensures that other feminists support them ideologically as well as socially/politically. Consequently, I'd argue that the majority of feminists at least implicitly support the views I outlined, the way that the majority of Republicans support lower taxes even though only a few have comprehensive knowledge/ideology of the subject.
On April 08 2012 06:44 ReturnStroke wrote: This is far from an isolated case of ideology/personal gain/etc taking priority over actual science. Although it seems to be popping up in social science even more. It's too bad, but at least people are speaking up about it :/
I agree, there are many hypocritical ideologies which attempt to take over science. However, none are as powerful and socially accepted as much as feminism, barring the exception of religion in some places.
On April 08 2012 06:51 nymfaw wrote: If they want things to be equal, everything should be equal right? Sorry for being semi-OT, just a thing I find really annoying.
Feminist ideology holds that we all live in an unjust patriarchy that oppresses women, and all men benefit from a unidirectional set of privileges solely due to being male. As a result, feminists will tell you that making things equal for men is definitely not a priority since women have it so much worse, and any advantages that women appear to have are more than outweight by the tons of advantages that men have.
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.
I'm dead serious. If you disagree, feel free to voice a logical criticism rather than cowardly implying that I'm wrong.
On April 08 2012 06:44 ReturnStroke wrote: This is far from an isolated case of ideology/personal gain/etc taking priority over actual science. Although it seems to be popping up in social science even more. It's too bad, but at least people are speaking up about it :/
I agree, there are many hypocritical ideologies which attempt to take over science. However, none are as powerful and socially accepted as much as feminism, barring the exception of religion in some places.
On April 08 2012 06:51 nymfaw wrote: If they want things to be equal, everything should be equal right? Sorry for being semi-OT, just a thing I find really annoying.
Feminist ideology holds that we all live in an unjust patriarchy that oppresses women, and all men benefit from a unidirectional set of privileges solely due to being male. As a result, feminists will tell you that making things equal for men is definitely not a priority since women have it so much worse, and any advantages that women appear to have are more than outweight by the tons of advantages that men have.
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.
I'm dead serious. If you disagree, feel free to voice a logical criticism rather than cowardly implying that I'm wrong.
"Cowardly implying that I'm wrong.", that's cute. No, thank you, though!
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.
I'm dead serious. If you disagree, feel free to voice a logical criticism rather than cowardly implying that I'm wrong.
"Cowardly implying that I'm wrong.", that's cute. No, thank you, though!
Alternatively, I just realized that I might have missed the sarcasm in your first post. XD
I don't know of that many other countries that have laws requiring 40% of a board of a private company to be female. It's a pretty absurd hybrid of feminism and communism enforcing such laws on a company that isn't even owned by the state.
edit: and the salary level has also been explained with the fact that many women want to be in lower paid jobs such as hairdressers, clothing shop assistants etc.
On April 08 2012 06:44 ReturnStroke wrote: This is far from an isolated case of ideology/personal gain/etc taking priority over actual science. Although it seems to be popping up in social science even more. It's too bad, but at least people are speaking up about it :/
I agree, there are many hypocritical ideologies which attempt to take over science. However, none are as powerful and socially accepted as much as feminism, barring the exception of religion in some places.
On April 08 2012 06:51 nymfaw wrote: If they want things to be equal, everything should be equal right? Sorry for being semi-OT, just a thing I find really annoying.
Feminist ideology holds that we all live in an unjust patriarchy that oppresses women, and all men benefit from a unidirectional set of privileges solely due to being male. As a result, feminists will tell you that making things equal for men is definitely not a priority since women have it so much worse, and any advantages that women appear to have are more than outweight by the tons of advantages that men have.
On April 08 2012 06:57 Pantythief wrote:
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.
I'm dead serious. If you disagree, feel free to voice a logical criticism rather than cowardly implying that I'm wrong.
"Cowardly implying that I'm wrong.", that's cute. No, thank you, though!
Answer him instead of calling what he said cute if you have to post a response. I think Sunprince is right. Norway, and Sweden where I live, are feminist strongholds and I agree that some social sciences ("genusvetenskap" or gender studies in particular) are based of ideology rather than proof and science. I know plenty of girls that say that there is no difference between the genders other than the reproductive organs and they are actually supported by the gender studies. When you show them real scientific research proving them wrong they shrug it of and say that the research is biased just as it's shown in the first documentary. Sure the researchers might have a hypothesis at the start but if it is proven wrong it's acknowledged immediately.
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.
This is an excellent post and sums up my views on the feminist idea of female (ir)responsibility.
When one half of the population is not responsible for their own mistakes and failures and the other half is blamed instead under the guise of misogyny, patriarchy, daddy issues; when one half enjoys freedom from any consequence and the other half is notoriously over-criminalized; when one half is not striving enough and the other half is dragged down instead; you have a fundamentally broken society.
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.
You gotta wonder when will they introduce a similar bill to have at least 40% female garbage collectors huh?
On April 08 2012 07:24 Deadlifter wrote: I don't know of that many other countries that have laws requiring 40% of a board of a private company to be female. It's a pretty absurd hybrid of feminism and communism enforcing such laws on a company that isn't even owned by the state.
edit: and the salary level has also been explained with the fact that many women want to be in lower paid jobs such as hairdressers, clothing shop assistants etc.
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 and so on. 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.
Feminist ideology holds that we all live in an unjust patriarchy that oppresses women, and all men benefit from a unidirectional set of privileges solely due to being male. As a result, feminists will tell you that making things equal for men is definitely not a priority since women have it so much worse, and any advantages that women appear to have are more than outweight by the tons of advantages that men have.
This part actually makes a lot of sense. Although the one thing they do have is looks. I know plenty of women who merely get hired for low paying waitress-type jobs because they look good. The thing is conservatives love expanding groups to fit their agenda. They'll talk about feminist extremists that push for insane policies, and then when you say 'hey, maybe men do have an easier time in life' you're branded as supporting the insane policies. This is the case for feminism, as when you ask someone if they want equal opportunities for men and women, and no unjust discrimination against women, they'll assume that's feminism and say yes. Then conservatives talk about the reactionary ideas and brand the two together to make any decent conversation about the topic go out the window. So you're right, ideologies in the feminist debate have taken over any meaningful science.
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.
I hate this feminist bullshit. Not much of an issue here, but when asking for funding for some project to government there is a 5% scoring bias in projects towards those made by a female (not that are many tbh though)
On April 08 2012 07:53 Roe wrote: This part actually makes a lot of sense. Although the one thing they do have is looks.
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.
On April 08 2012 07:53 Roe wrote: The thing is conservatives love expanding groups to fit their agenda. They'll talk about feminist extremists that push for insane policies, and then when you say 'hey, maybe men do have an easier time in life' you're branded as supporting the insane policies. This is the case for feminism, as when you ask someone if they want equal opportunities for men and women, and no unjust discrimination against women, they'll assume that's feminism and say yes. Then conservatives talk about the reactionary ideas and brand the two together to make any decent conversation about the topic go out the window. So you're right, ideologies in the feminist debate have taken over any meaningful science.
I agree, there are plenty of ideologies on both sides of many debates, instead of actual science and logic.
My sister is a typical feminist. My father buys her a car, my father pays her education, my father pays her rent, my father pays her bills and somehow she calls herself an independent woman.
Tbh feminism seems a little bit like the racism between 'light' and 'blacker' african americans that Malcolm X describes. It wouldn't exist if they learned to appreciate themselves for what they are, Malcolm X says that any social group that doesn't appreciate itself there cannot progress, I don't know if it's entirely true but living in Latin america it seems true sometimes.
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.
In a perfect world, discrimination wouldn't exist. Neither to add people or to stop them. (Can't find proper wording) People would be chosen for a job based on the skill they have, not their race, gender, looks, sexuality etc. etc. But hey, even though this level of perfection is unreachable, we live in a society that's way worse than this. In some countries to one side (where people are being helped because of gender/sexuality/race etc. and in other countries to the other.
On April 08 2012 08:07 gruff wrote: 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.
Except I'm not strawmanning it. The bullshit I'm calling out is exactly what feminists get hung up about.
Take a look at the website for the National Committee on Pay Equity (NCPE), a major feminist policy organization. Notice the bullshit wage gap stat I mentioned in the first paragraph of their homepage?
On April 08 2012 08:07 gruff wrote: Also I read the summary of that pdf and it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. It says the factors accont for the majority but not neccesarily all unequality.
The authors specifically note that the remaining inequality is most likely due to additional unadjusted factors such as work experience and job tenure (which we know can't possibly be small factors). The whole point is that the authors concluded "this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action."
They also reiterate my point that "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap," though they leave out the fact that it's feminists who are responsible for this.
On April 08 2012 08:07 gruff wrote: I agree that most feminist use bullshit stats though, but that doesn't neccesarily mean every point they are arguing is bullshit.
No, but their overall ideology is flawed, toxic, and morally bankrupt. It's past time to leave it behind and embrace a scientific, rather than ideological, way of gender thinking that emphasizes true egalitarianism.
There's reasonable criticism of feminism, and then there's just plain sexism. Some of the above clearly falls into the latter category. Hell, gender inequality was blatantly obvious for thousands of years up until 30-40 years ago. It should be equally obvious that such a short time is not enough to get rid of said gender inequality, even if we as as culture did make huge steps towards it. We're not quite there yet, though.
So, um, what does any of this have to do with the OP; anyhow?
On April 08 2012 08:19 Conti wrote: There's reasonable criticism of feminism, and then there's just plain sexism. Some of the above clearly falls into the latter category. Hell, gender inequality was blatantly obvious for thousands of years up until 30-40 years ago. It should be equally obvious that such a short time is not enough to get rid of said gender inequality, even if we as as culture did make huge steps towards it. We're not quite there yet, though.
So, um, what does any of this have to do with the OP; anyhow?
If you watch the documentary you'll probably find out.
On April 08 2012 08:19 Conti wrote: There's reasonable criticism of feminism, and then there's just plain sexism. Some of the above clearly falls into the latter category.
Prove it. Give me a specific example of the criticisms of feminism I've provided in this thread and how it's sexist.
On April 08 2012 08:19 Conti wrote: So, um, what does any of this have to do with the OP; anyhow?
Who do you think is one of the main parties responsible for the brainwashing described by the documentary?
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? Gotta say man you come off as quite a bit ignorant. It gave me a good laugh though. :p I don't think you understand Scandinavian culture in the slightest and should probably stop making comments on it.
On April 08 2012 08:19 Conti wrote: There's reasonable criticism of feminism, and then there's just plain sexism. Some of the above clearly falls into the latter category.
Prove it. Give me a specific example of the criticisms of feminism I've provided in this thread and how it's sexist.
Sure:
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.
On April 08 2012 08:19 Conti wrote: So, um, what does any of this have to do with the OP; anyhow?
Who do you think is one of the main parties responsible for the brainwashing described by the documentary?
I haven't seen the entire documentary (have you?), but according to the titles of the episodes, gender inequality makes up 1/7th of the issue, not 100% as you seem to imply.
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.
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.
Actually they are. In my experience women are their own worst enemies and I've even seen a few studies that supports just that.
A screenplay was sent to various producers and agent for feedback, but half was sent from a female name and the other half from a male. After recieving feedback the female version was rated significantly lower than the male. So men are discriminating against women to secure their own positions, right? Wrong. After filtering the results the male producers rated the male and female writers roughly the same while the female producers were the ones responsible for the discrimination against women...
(It's a rough summary of the experiment. I don't have a source for it sorry :/ )
On April 08 2012 07:53 Roe wrote: This part actually makes a lot of sense. Although the one thing they do have is looks.
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.
On April 08 2012 07:53 Roe wrote: The thing is conservatives love expanding groups to fit their agenda. They'll talk about feminist extremists that push for insane policies, and then when you say 'hey, maybe men do have an easier time in life' you're branded as supporting the insane policies. This is the case for feminism, as when you ask someone if they want equal opportunities for men and women, and no unjust discrimination against women, they'll assume that's feminism and say yes. Then conservatives talk about the reactionary ideas and brand the two together to make any decent conversation about the topic go out the window. So you're right, ideologies in the feminist debate have taken over any meaningful science.
I agree, there are plenty of ideologies on both sides of many debates, instead of actual science and logic.
I thought I'd revise this list a bit for more accuracy. It's such an absurdly one sided post.
As a woman and my priviledges: 1. I have a much higher chance of being sexually assaulted than a man (but at least I won't get murdered!) 2. I am three times as likely to be prescribed anti-depressants (but at least I didn't commit suicide) 3. I I have a much higher chance of being a victim of rape than a man (but at least I'm less likely to be violently hurt) 4. It's acceptable for me to cry. Woohoo! This is such a huge advantage, especially when men self-imposed this own rule on themselves because of their constant narrative that reason > emotion, and women are emotional, hence it's okay for them to cry. Wait, this doesn't seem advantageous at all. 5. I will probably live longer than the average man. Thank God, finally, a legitimate advantage. 6. Society will probably see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how attractive I am.
I could go on, but I got bored. It's honestly pretty disgusting to read this. It's so much easier for a woman to get a mate, lol, that's the one that pisses me off. Yea, except when picking mates they have to be a lot more cautious. Cause when you pick the wrong person, no big deal, walk away. When she picks the wrong person, well, good luck to her. It usually doesn't end well.
edit: I forgot this really special one:
18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
Was this one supposed to be a joke? You're not seriously going to suggest that women are somehow LESS regulated than men on what they wear in social occasions, are you? Just think about this hypothetical: You're going in for a job interview. What do you wear? A suit. No problem. What does a woman wear? Maybe she can wear something "vulnerable" and "open", or maybe she has to wear something more professsional - although maybe that would make her too unfeminine. It's really not clear what she should wear... but it is clear that she will be judged for whatever she does much more harshly than for your difficult decision to wear a suit. At least you know what is expected of you. You can call it a restriction, but it benefits you more than women.
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.
Actually they are. In my experience women are their own worst enemies and I've even seen a few studies that supports just that.
A screenplay was sent to various producers and agent for feedback, but half was sent from a female name and the other half from a male. After recieving feedback the female version was rated significantly lower than the male. So men are discriminating against women to secure their own positions, right? Wrong. After filtering the results the male producers rated the male and female writers roughly the same while the female producers were the ones responsible for the discrimination against women...
(It's a rough summary of the experiment. I don't have a source for it sorry :/ )
Women are typically the best enforcers of sexism. It's true. And unfortunate.
On April 08 2012 11:30 WolfintheSheep wrote: "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.
What I said is factually true, men do commit more murders than women do, thus men are responsible for said inequality, just as women are responsible for committing less murders than men. I think we differ in the sense that I think people, spesific people, individuals, can have a lot of importance when it comes to this issue.
Just saying inequalities are a result of biological roles effecting social roles is not sufficient. Different cultures pretty clearly shows us how perceptions about social roles can be guided and lead towards different results depending on which culture you are observing.
Your points is true at it's core, but these fundamentals can be shaped. There has been female leaders in ancient times (Cleopatra for example), which in other parts of the world at the same period was unthinkable.
My only point with that earlier post was to say the most glaring inequalities are still present in the western world are still here because of powerful male figures hesitant to do anything about them. The inequalities listed in the previous post are not the same. I'm not saying men are responsible for being the dominant gender, I'm saying in todays' society there is no reasoning for keeping this old notion of "men are the physically stronger sex so they shall rule". If you do not pursue equality that is what will happen, even today.
Edit: My coherency is just not there atm. Its 05.41 in Norway right now so I apologize for my bad writing, I'm really tired (damn regame. PartinG had that game)... I will go to bed now and see if I can get my point across in a better fashion tomorrow.
Very interesting. These theories were quite popular all around the world some decades ago, before the role of biology in these issues was well understood. Now academics in the rest of the world have had to grapple with genetics.
It's true that, at a basic level, the idea of biological differences between people seems threatening to egalitarian beliefs. Historically it has been the justification for many injustices, but I don't think it has to be that way. We can accept and embrace the differences between us and try to create a society in which one set of differences is not arbitrarily advantaged over others.
The problem with ignoring biology altogether is that it leaves it as a weapon for bigots, who use it to say that inequality is inevitable or even justified and that anyone who says otherwise is ignoring "science".
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.
That what you call male dominated fields had an increase in female students doesn't tell us much though. For example in sweden there has been a large increase in female university students. And before you start thinking that sounds nice and equal, since a lot of people tend to think equality just means advantages for women, females been a majority of the university students in sweden for a while. And because it has to be said after I brought that up, does the decrease in performance from boys in school perhaps have something to do with the measures sweden has taken when it comes to equality? The amount of female university students does not mean there will be a proportional increase of females in so called male dominated jobs either. Just one factor(and there are many factors) is that the fields with most males, like construction workers, waste collectors, truck drivers etc don't tend to require university degrees.
As for the thread topic, our(very useful) preference for categorical thinking seem to trigger all kinds of thinking errors with things like this, I'll take the two most obvious ones. -Feminism is not a synonym for woman. -Like masculism, feminism is not necessarily a synonym for equality.
Been a while since I watched Hjernvask but was probably about time that the, I'd almost call it hatred against actual science in parts of the so called women's studies field got some attention.
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.
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.
Two things pop up when I read yours and the quoted posts. Unlike the first list, I read and hear about the issues in your list in media every day. There are probably many reasons for that lack of equality but for one I always figured the Missing white woman syndrome was mostly a side effect of a larger "syndrome".
The other thing is, how can most of the bad gender roles in your list possibly change? When it's easier for females to find partners for example, it will have effects. How men and women pick partners should logically have large affects as well, and so on. Do you even think it's possible to make women less picky? Or to change what men and women generally find attractive?
todays feminist mind frame portrayed in some of the comments on those links/discussions/blogs: "OK so I take it boys and girls are not equal. Which are better, then?" so much for equality.
I haven't watched it, but it sounds to be like bad science has been debunked.
And of course men and women are physiologically different. Women should be treated with respect, like everyone else, but to suggest that they are exactly the same as men is absurd.
There are different advantages and disadvantages to being a women and being a man.
Seriously, in the end of episode 1 those norwegian researchers made me mad, like that woman saying that scientists are only looking at what they want to find, so goddamn ignorant :<
I watched episode 1 and 3 yesterday. Damn those Norwegian "scientists" are terribly ignorant and have no grasp on the idea of science at all. Anyway, one thing I found kinda odd was that in both episodes (and I guess it's true for all of them) there are the same so called experts and the pattern of the show is the same, too. First he talks to Lorentzen (I think that was his name right?) and that female Norwegian researcher, than he goes to America and England to talk to people who actually have some studies to back them up (like the professor that did the test in over9000 countries) and then he goes back to Norway and confronts the first group of people with these studies and exposes that they don't care about science and just want to push their agenda of total equality or what they think that is.
On April 08 2012 12:09 shinosai wrote: 18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
Was this one supposed to be a joke? You're not seriously going to suggest that women are somehow LESS regulated than men on what they wear in social occasions, are you? Just think about this hypothetical: You're going in for a job interview. What do you wear? A suit. No problem. What does a woman wear? Maybe she can wear something "vulnerable" and "open", or maybe she has to wear something more professsional - although maybe that would make her too unfeminine. It's really not clear what she should wear... but it is clear that she will be judged for whatever she does much more harshly than for your difficult decision to wear a suit. At least you know what is expected of you. You can call it a restriction, but it benefits you more than women.
Did you read what you just wrote before you posted? You just agreed that men are more regulated, they can't choose they need to go with the suit. That can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. You choose to see it as a disadvantage for the girl that it gets hard for her to choose between all of her options. But it could just as well be seen as a disadvantage for the male since he gets unable to express himself through his clothing.
It is the same thing with most issues feminism is raving about. Like the thing were women are expected to stay home with the kids. It is a disadvantage since then she gets less pay on the job. But at the same time men are disadvantaged since they are expected to be out earning money and thus it isn't acceptable for them to be home with the kids. If women were smart they would always take the male side and say things like "we wish to allow males to be home more with their kids" rather than "We want to force men to take their responsibility at home with the kids". I can tell you that the deal were the men are working and women are at home is not at all unquestionable in favor of males. I am certain that women wouldn't be happy if they were not allowed to stay home with the kids and the men stayed home while she were forced to work. Working isn't necessarily a privilege, just as staying home with the kids isn't. Feminists however argue that working is so much better than staying home and that males are oppressing females since they take the working role and lets her stay home. 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?
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 watched the first video, already finding it very very interesting, but alas I have deadlines tomorrow and cant watch all of them.
Interestingly I just had a relatively heated discussion about gender with a friend where my friend refused to admit that there is a biological difference in the brains of males and females 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..,
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.
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.
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote: That what you call male dominated fields had an increase in female students doesn't tell us much though. For example in sweden there has been a large increase in female university students. And before you start thinking that sounds nice and equal, since a lot of people tend to think equality just means advantages for women, females been a majority of the university students in sweden for a while.
It does tell us something. For years now schools and the government has been trying to promote physics and computer science as viable career-choices for women, and it has obviously worked. You are completely right that there are more female students in general, but I don't think those numbers coincide perfectly, I believe the measures that was taken in Norway had something to do with the increase in female students in those fields, and not just that there are more female students overall. I could be wrong though, can't really back it up with any numbers.
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote: The amount of female university students does not mean there will be a proportional increase of females in so called male dominated jobs either. Just one factor(and there are many factors) is that the fields with most males, like construction workers, waste collectors, truck drivers etc don't tend to require university degrees.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. All I'm saying is that I believe there are still stigmas present in today's society that makes it harder for women to chase certain jobs, even though the interest is there. The same applies for men in certain female-dominated fields of work as well by the way.
On April 08 2012 13:46 Akta wrote: And because it has to be said after I brought that up, does the decrease in performance from boys in school perhaps have something to do with the measures sweden has taken when it comes to equality?
It might do, but it is a very hard question to answer, and there are a multitude of answers. I'm actually studying to become a male teacher, and the request for us is huge, especially in classes 1-10. We've discussed this in class a couple of times, without making any conclusions. A lot of researchers tend to believe the decrease in performance has something to do with less male role-models. There are (at least in Norway) a ton of female teachers in comparison to males in classes 1-10, and this might have an effect. Also, the fact that boys mature later than girls could have an effect in our school system as we have gone away from the 60s era of strict discipline, and gone over to individual responsibility and self-taught work-ethic. Boys (and I am of course generalizing here) tend to perform less overall in such environments.
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.
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.
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.
I watched 2 of the episodes (gender equality and sex) and I think it's important that he challenges the popular notion that pretty much everything is based in culture. Kind of refreshing to see.
But at the same time I'm not sure that these innate differences wouldn't be possible to change by society. I think we as humans have a strong ability to counteract and learn/associate things like sex and attitudes to something completely different even if there is small predisposition towards one attitude. It's not like we are completely driven by our biology and can't choose not to act in other ways, and also find other ways rewarding.
Also for example with the higher prenatal testosterone -> lower levels of empathy / more system oriented thinking, I think it's more useful to talk about that in terms of just testosterone levels. Most of the time when looking at the gender differences men and women are pretty much the same and share a lot of variance, but the mean of one group is slightly higher. Which doesn't really tell me anything about how a person of a specific gender is apart from that people (men or women) are very different within the same group but not so much between groups. Those things are true for things like "women better at verbal, men at spatial", "men are more interested in systems, women in communications with other people", etc.
Anyway, I think we could use something like this in Sweden. Social sciences are definitely politicized and you can't talk about any differences exist whatsoever if they aren't based in culture without getting at least some angry looks. There is a lot of very strange research being done that I wouldn't even consider being research at all. Even pointing differences out at all is seen as something bad which may or may not be the case depending on the subject matter.
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.
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.
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.
So I googled "Man Woman Myth" and found their website. The very first article I was presented with is titled "Female Comedians - Why are female stand-up comedians not so funny?". The final paragraph of the article reads: "Let a woman walk a mile in his shoes, or maybe 3000 miles to represent his life, and then maybe she’ll be funny. But typically? To borrow from the mindset of all too many women: stand-up comedy needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle."
I dislike these kinds of shows, because of their massive power in changing peoples mind while only showing a small part of the sample size to the viewer. Also there is the editing.
WTB a study or survey of Norwegian scientists in the involved fields.
On April 08 2012 12:09 shinosai wrote: 18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.
Was this one supposed to be a joke? You're not seriously going to suggest that women are somehow LESS regulated than men on what they wear in social occasions, are you? Just think about this hypothetical: You're going in for a job interview. What do you wear? A suit. No problem. What does a woman wear? Maybe she can wear something "vulnerable" and "open", or maybe she has to wear something more professsional - although maybe that would make her too unfeminine. It's really not clear what she should wear... but it is clear that she will be judged for whatever she does much more harshly than for your difficult decision to wear a suit. At least you know what is expected of you. You can call it a restriction, but it benefits you more than women.
Did you read what you just wrote before you posted? You just agreed that men are more regulated, they can't choose they need to go with the suit. That can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. You choose to see it as a disadvantage for the girl that it gets hard for her to choose between all of her options. But it could just as well be seen as a disadvantage for the male since he gets unable to express himself through his clothing.
It is the same thing with most issues feminism is raving about. Like the thing were women are expected to stay home with the kids. It is a disadvantage since then she gets less pay on the job. But at the same time men are disadvantaged since they are expected to be out earning money and thus it isn't acceptable for them to be home with the kids. If women were smart they would always take the male side and say things like "we wish to allow males to be home more with their kids" rather than "We want to force men to take their responsibility at home with the kids". I can tell you that the deal were the men are working and women are at home is not at all unquestionable in favor of males. I am certain that women wouldn't be happy if they were not allowed to stay home with the kids and the men stayed home while she were forced to work. Working isn't necessarily a privilege, just as staying home with the kids isn't. Feminists however argue that working is so much better than staying home and that males are oppressing females since they take the working role and lets her stay home. 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?
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.
As far as the job issue, it wasn't until recently that you even had maternity leave. Anyways, if women are expected to stay at home once they have kids and men are expected to work, economically men must logically be advantaged, no matter how you try to spin it. It SHOULD be a choice to stay at home or work - but right now the choice is made for you. Feminists don't argue that men should be forced to be stay at home dads, but it doesn't make much sense that women must be the caretakers. 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.
I'm amazed that these Norwegian sociologists were claiming that sexual orientation isn't innate. That's just crazy. I thought it was universal knowledge by now that people are born gay, that it's not a choice, and yet these people are saying that a person can choose or change their sexual orientation. That's the same belief as the nutjobs who run those Christian orientation reassignment camps. If they believe that then the "brainwashing" is worse than I thought.
I can't wait to get to the episode on race. That will certainly be the most controversial, since this data on gender and intelligence is already widely known, while the possibility of racial differences is never even touched out of fear.
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.
Take it easy, one day you will get a girlfriend as well Just keep on tryin'!
Although feminism is based off of the belief that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men, the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women. I think this idea is entirely reasonable and very poignant. Sex discrimination was until very recently common in most countries. For example, in the United States, many women could not obtain credit cards, make wills, or own property without the consent of a husband in the 1970's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Strike_for_Equality#Reactions_and_media_coverage)
If people attempt to give men and women unequal rights, they are not feminist. They are sexist. Radical feminists, however, are feminists that intend to produce equal rights for both men and women but use radical means to do so that might have unintended consequences. This debate seems to consider feminism as a movement that aggressively promotes the rights of women and discards the rights of men. If that movement is in fact taking place, it is a sexist, not a feminist, movement.
It seems like the people in this thread are targeting feminism without understanding what feminism is. Feminism may involve affirmative action, but its ultimate goal is to achieve equality. Affirmative action with a long-term goal of giving more rights to females than males, or vice versa, is sexism.
I found very interesting the chapter about shaping children's habits through parenthood, because apparently most of all is determined by genetics. I have an aunt, she is a kindergarden teacher that has done research in environnment shaping little kids intelligence, all her research showed how 'everything' was the environnment and dumb excercises to stimulate the brain, etc, she kinda did these things on me when I was in kindergarden age, I learned to do the two basic math operations (both my parents are engineers) and learned to speak at a very young age, she also did these excercises with my cousins and what not, some were brighter than others... anyways now she has a 2 year old child, and the kid is just not too bright, he cannot pronounce 1 word and well my aunt is all worried because all her excercises have failed. I had a conversation with her about it telling her it was mostly genetic and that if her kid doesn't speak it's no problem he'll learn eventually. I think this is important for parents to know, because like my aunt a lot of people want to have 'superchildren' in this age where most people have 1 or 2 childs and it's just not like that, people should leave kids alone a little more instead of being on their backs all the time.
The best way to resolve the nurture vs nature debate for good is to simply begin cloning humans. The ethical objections are based on naturalistic fallacies and religious dogma, anyways, so let's get started right now and resolve this once and for all. Besides, who doesn't want a little clone of themselves?
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.
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. 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 each other. .
Liquid`Drone I think we can all agree that both factors have effects. To say there is "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY" we can gauge the differences in these effects is a bit of a cop-out though. Science is a beautiful thing and we shouldn't give up on studying problems just because the solutions are not obvious. If you look at the video there is a scientist that does cross-cultural studies in 100s of different countries and I think these are the sort of studies that ABSOLUTELY CAN shed light on the issue.
Now I believe neither you nor I know the full extent of what these studies say, and what remaining work can be done, because we are not experts in the field. There are things to be said on what specific aspects of personality are affected by culture, what specific aspects of culture actually affect personality, etc. etc.
I think what can be said is that no individual person should be judged based on their gender, parents, race, etc. No matter what broad statistical trends exist among groups, any individual should have the opportunity to do any thing they are capable of. Such statistical trends in the social sciences are, after all, usually fairly weak and only measure things at the broadest of levels.
For something like PMS you could look at monozygotic twins preferably separated in order to gain insight into how much of the variance can be explained by what. Compare the difference to that of dizygotic twins or siblings or so. Best way to look at nature and nurture variance but hard to get good twin samples.
A bit harder when it comes to things like aggression though, with monozygotic twins ofc having the same sex.
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.
The main problem with most of that stuff is vague generalizations like "50% nature, 50% nurture". For those numbers to be meaningful it has to be clear what you are trying to measure. I'll take some simple examples: -Human behavior is roughly 100% genetical. Ignoring supernatural models this is arguably correct. -What a humans life will be like is roughly 100% dependent on the environment. This is also arguably correct.
So like I said you need to be clear about what you are trying to measure. Most human behavioral attributes can certainly be measured, sometimes very accurately. So I disagree completely that it's impossible to determine to what degree what matters unless you mean by 100% accuracy, but if you do I don't understand your argument. That for example so called women's studies sometimes appear to have some form of hatred against actual knowledge doesn't mean that actual knowledge is impossible get, it just means there is(perhaps a lot of) bad science is that field.
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. 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 each other. .
Liquid`Drone I think we can all agree that both factors have effects. To say there is "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY" we can gauge the differences in these effects is a bit of a cop-out though. Science is a beautiful thing and we shouldn't give up on studying problems just because the solutions are not obvious. If you look at the video there is a scientist that does cross-cultural studies in 100s of different countries and I think these are the sort of studies that ABSOLUTELY CAN shed light on the issue.
Now I believe neither you nor I know the full extent of what these studies say, and what remaining work can be done, because we are not experts in the field. There are things to be said on what specific aspects of personality are affected by culture, what specific aspects of culture actually affect personality, etc. etc.
I think what can be said is that no individual person should be judged based on their gender, parents, race, etc. No matter what broad statistical trends exist among groups, any individual should have the opportunity to do any thing they are capable of. Such statistical trends in the social sciences are, after all, usually fairly weak and only measure things at the broadest of levels.
this stuff is way too complex for it to be solved by a mathematical equation. I mean, say that we eventually manage to completely map out human genealogy or whatever, and how it influences a person. And say we also knew exactly how people are psychiogically influenced by experiences through their life. We'd still need to know every single tiniest detail of that person's life so far to have the ability to mathematically calculate the percentage of biological vs societal influence in determining qualities and abilities in that person..
Even accepting that humanity eventually reaches the level of knowledge where it'd be theoretically possible to accurately state what percentage of a person's behavior can be attributed to the person's biology and what percentage can be attributed to how he was influenced by society, we're currently at like what, 2% of the knowledge level required to accurately calculate this stuff. basically, the nature vs nurture discussion, and the degree to which people feel comfortable making bombastic statements regarding biological abilities of different genders, makes me feel like I'm watching people try to precisely calculate the mass and density and trajectory of every component flung out following the big bang, or that someone claims to know exactly when and from what different species evolved from other species. We probably know that there was a big bang of some kind. We know that species have the ability to evolve. We know that human behavior is influenced by biology as well as society/upbringing. And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
Analyzing how much of the variance in behavior etc can be explained by genes (heritability) is perfectly possible even if it doesn't mean that genes cause the behavior.
Not the same as explaining why 1 person does something, but with twin studies you can still get insight into how genes + environment shape us.
Not really suited for all types of behavior but something like aggression could still be looked at for example.
Watched two episodes and skipped through a third. And even though I plan to watch the others as well - since they are quite entertaining and deal with subjects that I'm generally interested in - those "documentarys" are quite obviously edited and biased to such a degree that the people representing the "cultural influence"-side of the "argument" are portrayed as complete dummies (or eia actually chose complete dummies, hard to tell without knowing their work).
Two-thirds of my course of studies consists of social studies and I've yet to meet or read of anyone in the field who'd completly rule out biological factors to explain human behaviour. It's true that social studies and the broad field surrounding them usually focus on cultural influences, but that's solely because those are the main subject of their respective fields. Since I'm not sure if my english is clear in this case so: of course media studies focus on media and their influence on humans, and not the biological factors, because that's the main focus of their interest - but that isn't identical to actually denying biological/educational/.... factors.
In other words: the argument presented by Eia, an argument of people who strictly deny biological against the moderate scientiest who search for a compromise, seems suprisingly new and not representative of the general tone in social studies to me.
On April 09 2012 08:53 KiaL.Kiwi wrote: Watched two episodes and skipped through a third. And even though I plan to watch the others as well - since they are quite entertaining and deal with subjects that I'm generally interested in - those "documentarys" are quite obviously edited and biased to such a degree that the people representing the "cultural influence"-side of the "argument" are portrayed as complete dummies (or eia actually chose complete dummies, hard to tell without knowing their work).
Two-thirds of my course of studies consists of social studies and I've yet to meet or read of anyone in the field who'd completly rule out biological factors to explain human behaviour. It's true that social studies and the broad field surrounding them usually focus on cultural influences, but that's solely because those are the main subject of their respective fields. Since I'm not sure if my english is clear in this case so: of course media studies focus on media and their influence on humans, and not the biological factors, because that's the main focus of their interest - but that isn't identical to actually denying biological/educational/.... factors.
In other words: the argument presented by Eia, an argument of people who strictly deny biological against the moderate scientiest who search for a compromise, seems suprisingly new and not representative of the general tone in social studies to me.
Agree with most of what you say. Bad science in a field(which I would say is what hjernevask is about) like for example gender studies doesn't mean all gender studies are bad.
edit How representative it is depends on what you compare to. Sweden is probably "worse" than Norway with this for example.
not subbed, unfortunately. It doesn't quite argue the other side of the argument, but it does show how Eia has been very selective in his editing, and the interviewee comes out of it with a more reasonable and rational argument for his case, a more accurate critique of Eia's sources, and as a bit more open to the other side of an argument.
Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
On April 09 2012 11:47 Hinanawi wrote: Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
Is this really the dominant view in Norway?
Not dominant but I've heard it a few times in Sweden, would think it's about the same in Norway. They are just ignoring facts and shaping reality to their ideology.
On April 09 2012 11:47 Hinanawi wrote: Is this for real? I just watched the first one. Now I'm just a dumb American, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that men and women are exactly the same biologically besides their reproductive horomones/secondary sex traits. Not even my anthropology and gender studies professors for my general education classes said anything close to that.
Is this really the dominant view in Norway?
politically, the emphasis has been put on social constructions for things like gender, education, alcohol policy, but I don't think it's the dominant view. Also, keep in mind that the same "gender researcher" (Jørgen Lorentzen, who's field of expertise is actually literature, not gender studies, sociology or biology) has been commenting in almost every episode of the series, and he isn't completely uncontroversial among his peers in Norway.
Thanks for the recommendation i've really enjoyed the series, i would have liked to see all the interviews unedited however, as he obviously has an agenda and it comes out as being far from impartial, the interviews at the end where the Norwegian researchers and experts that hold the opposing views are confronted comes out pretty badly in my opinion. The documentary itself hasn't really changed my opinion on the topics as i've never really believed in children being born a "tabula rasa".
A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.
On April 09 2012 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
I believe that's the point of the documentary:
The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: Although feminism is based off of the belief that women are disadvantaged in comparison to men, the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women. I think this idea is entirely reasonable and very poignant. Sex discrimination was until very recently common in most countries. For example, in the United States, many women could not obtain credit cards, make wills, or own property without the consent of a husband in the 1970's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Strike_for_Equality#Reactions_and_media_coverage)
If people attempt to give men and women unequal rights, they are not feminist. They are sexist. Radical feminists, however, are feminists that intend to produce equal rights for both men and women but use radical means to do so that might have unintended consequences. This debate seems to consider feminism as a movement that aggressively promotes the rights of women and discards the rights of men. If that movement is in fact taking place, it is a sexist, not a feminist, movement.
It seems like the people in this thread are targeting feminism without understanding what feminism is. Feminism may involve affirmative action, but its ultimate goal is to achieve equality. Affirmative action with a long-term goal of giving more rights to females than males, or vice versa, is sexis
m.
There are some perhaps more conspiratorial or social engineering purposes behind it besides right enhancements. Feminism has been linked to decreasing fertility rates and increased percentage of women in the labor force, meaning more revenue and less children.
ect... (you can fill an entire night reading papers on it so feel free to look for yourself)
One thing I always disagree with is that feminism or rise of women is somehow a cause of these societal traits, rather than effect. Nearly all post-industrial economies who age experience declining birth rates (excluding Ireland off the top of my head) and it seems its an effect of age, rather than a cause of declining birth rates. However those papers above explore the idea it can (or seems to be already working for Brazil) be supplanted artificially to speed up the process of increased woman labor and declining birth rates. In the long term is it good? Yeah, bottom line demographic transitions are projected to curb overpopulation (although economies and government revenue will suffer and undergo transitions in the very long term), social engineering can artifically enhance this "aging" process.
On April 09 2012 07:34 Liquid`Drone wrote: And it's fine that people want to research this while attempting to learn more - but it's not fine that people claim to have the answers, because they don't.
I believe that's the point of the documentary:
The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway. what hjernevask did was: interview people who were representatives of fringe beliefs, edit their interviews to make them seem even more extreme, argue that this was the dominant point of view in norway, and then debunk the opinions held by the guys being interviewed. in reality, social studies definitely focus on the "nurture" aspect, but this is because that's their field of study. biology also focuses on the "nature" cause of effect, but sensible biologists wouldn't suggest that upbringing has no effect.
hjernevask was cool because eventually, it made people who followed the debate realize that everyone were actually in agreement aside from "percentage of influence" or whatever, but scientifically, it's garbage. harald eia is a comedian (and a really, really funny one), but that's it.
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 ^_^
On April 11 2012 07:11 sunprince wrote: The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway.
I'm not necessarily disputing you here, but do you have any citations for your claim?
Man how can the ''gender researchers'' just reject all the science that is proving that men and women do have difference in biology. You don't need to be a genius to understand that's the case, it is displayed both on the outside and inside.
Find it funny that they seem to be obsessed with the notion that scientists that are studying differences are, obsessed with that their are differences in the genders, while in truth it is the ''gender researchers'' that are obsesses with their belief that men and female are exacly the same.
Gender researchers disgust me truly. Basing a belief on your idea and then rejecting true research is so idiotic I'm amazed by it's stupidity.
On April 11 2012 07:11 sunprince wrote: The author suggests that ideologically-influenced researchers in Norway claim to unequivocally know that biology has no effect, while the scientific consensus pretty much everywhere else holds that it's some combination of nature and nurture, without specifying the exact proportion.
yes, and that's an incorrect assessment of the dominant belief held in norway.
I'm not necessarily disputing you here, but do you have any citations for your claim?
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.
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.
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.
This is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree. You cannot extend a blanket statement from extremists to cover moderates in any.movement.
It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
On April 11 2012 20:30 sunprince wrote: 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.
On April 12 2012 06:31 sunprince wrote:
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.
You are arguing that, because people claiming to be feminists do things that create inequality among the sexes, feminism does not promote equality. This is fallacious logic. Declaring that, because a statement is true, the converse of that statement is also true is completely irrational.
If I told you that because apples, oranges, and bananas are fruit, all fruit are either apples, oranges, or bananas, you would think my logic ridiculous. Yet you claim that, because groups of people who claim to be feminist are practicing what you believe to be sexist policies, feminism as a whole is inherently sexist.
Your argument is not only illogical, but it also makes a rather large assumption: that people who claim to be feminist in fact represent feminism. I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that women advocating deliberately sexist policies who claim to be feminists are in fact feminist. Feminism is usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for men and women. In my personal experience, the majority of people I meet who label themselves feminists support equal rights for both sexes. These individuals are as egalitarian as you are.
To address your Republican party analogy, I would argue that members of the Republican Party do not necessarily represent Republican beliefs. For example, many of Ron Paul's beliefs differ from those of the Republican Party but he is still running as a Republican candidate. Many Republicans do not accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican," but they do not protest his self-identification as Republican because there is no legal basis for removing him from the Republican Party. I would not argue that Republicans are "morally bankrupt" because they do not actively attempt to discredit party members whose beliefs do not coincide with the official positions of the party.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: This is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree. You cannot extend a blanket statement from extremists to cover moderates in any.movement.
You can if the extremists are accepted as members of the movement. I used "extremist" in the general sense, not within the context of the movement. Radical feminists might be regarded as extremists by the general population, but are accepted as part of the movement by other feminists.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
When Muslims engage in terrorist acts, most other Muslims condemn them for it and call their actions un-Islamic. Furthermore, you can examine the ideological texts and teachings of Muslims to find that terrorism actually is incompatible with the Muslim faith.
The same cannot be said of feminists. When feminists act in ways that are misandrist, statistically challenged, or deceptive, they are not condemned by other feminists.
For example, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) was created/pushed for by feminists, applauded by virtually all feminsts, and continues to be defended by feminists today in the midst of its renewal, despite the fact that it erases male victims of rape/domestic violence, establishes funding only for female victims, and infringes on the rights of accused in a way that even the ACLU (traditionally allies of feminists) called "repugnant". Feminsts perpetuate the wage gap myth, fought for the banning of paternity tests and sexist quotas, and support the ridiculously sexist family courts. Feminsts applauded and supported Lorena Bobbitt when she mutilated the gentials of her husband 19 years ago, and rallied behind Catherine Kieu Becker when she did the same last year. Likewise, feminist ideological text includes radical feminist Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto, which advocates genocide.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: If I told you that because apples, oranges, and bananas are fruit, all fruit are either apples, oranges, or bananas, you would think my logic ridiculous. Yet you claim that, because groups of people who claim to be feminist are practicing what you believe to be sexist policies, feminism as a whole is inherently sexist.
Try reading more carefully. I am not saying that sexist women claim to be feminist. I'm saying that feminists accept sexist women among their ranks, and also that feminist ideology is inherently sexist.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: Your argument is not only illogical, but it also makes a rather large assumption: that people who claim to be feminist in fact represent feminism. I don't think that it is reasonable to assume that women advocating deliberately sexist policies who claim to be feminists are in fact feminist.
It's reasonable when other feminists consider them feminist, and when their actions are completely in line with feminist ideology and assumptions.
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: Feminism is usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for men and women.
No, it's not. It's usually defined as a movement that attempts to achieve equal rights for women. Can you name even one feminist campaign for men's rights?
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: In my personal experience, the majority of people I meet who label themselves feminists support equal rights for both sexes. These individuals are as egalitarian as you are.
I don't actually disagree completely with you here, as my experience with many feminist friends (despite our differences) both on the gendersphere and IRL suggests that the majority of feminists consider themselves egalitarian.
However, I will say that most feminists are blind (willfully or not) to the sexism that pervades feminist ideology, the fact that institutionally powerful feminists (writers, politicians, professors, etc.) tend to be extermist, and the fact that feminism has caused grievous harms to both men and women. Additionally, most feminists are hesistant to call out other feminists for their sexism (a huge blind spot perpetuated at least in part by the fact that the existence of sexism against men is not held in consensus).
On April 12 2012 10:46 Rainling wrote: To address your Republican party analogy, I would argue that members of the Republican Party do not necessarily represent Republican beliefs. For example, many of Ron Paul's beliefs differ from those of the Republican Party but he is still running as a Republican candidate. Many Republicans do not accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican," but they do not protest his self-identification as Republican because there is no legal basis for removing him from the Republican Party. I would not argue that Republicans are "morally bankrupt" because they do not actively attempt to discredit party members whose beliefs do not coincide with the official positions of the party.
What's key there is that many Republicans don't accept Ron Paul as a "true Republican". The same cannot be said about feminists, as they don't label people like Valerie Solanas, Catherine MacKinnon, or Andrea Dworkin as "not true feminists".
On April 12 2012 02:04 EienShinwa wrote: 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.
I don't think you watched the whole documentary. It only shows that part at the beginning to show both sides of the argument, in the end biology prevailed.
It is heavily in favour of biological reasons rather than cultural reasons. You see the first interviewees being proved completely wrong and they get really uncomfortable when shown solid proof that boys act completely different and have completely different interests to girls as soon as they are born.
That's why even with perfect "gender equality" we will still only have 10% ratio of girls as engineers, and 10% ratio of boys as nurses.
Your responses are well thought out, and I probably was too harsh in my response because I didn't understand the logic behind your statements. However, I don't understand one point that you made.
I do not understand why you believe that feminist ideology is inherently sexist because it attempts to achieve equal rights for women and does not typically concern itself with achieving equal rights for men. Another example of this type of ideology is the African-American Civil Rights Movement. This movement had the goal of achieving equal rights for African Americans. It addressed real and unjust discrimination against African Americans. You could make the argument that this movement was inherently racist, because it only furthered the rights of one racial group. However, I would argue that the movement was created to address an unjust situation and was not intended to further the rights of African Americans past an equal balance with those of other racial groups.
I think that feminism is indistinguishable from this movement excepting the particular group whose rights it is furthering. Although there are people who call themselves feminists who are sexist, the movement by definition is intended to equalize rights. Even today women are discriminated against, just as men are also discriminated against. Feminism is intended to address a particular type of discrimination that is a real and current problem, and I see no problem with that. Even if sexist people are accepted as feminists in today's society, that does not change what feminism actually is. I think that feminism is an egalitarian movement, just like the African-American Civil Rights Movement. They both focus on a specific aspect of equality (women's rights, African American rights) but do not seek to impede the rights of other groups.
The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
You can if the extremists are accepted as members of the movement. I used "extremist" in the general sense, not within the context of the movement. Radical feminists might be regarded as extremists by the general population, but are accepted as part of the movement by other feminists.
On April 12 2012 10:04 BluePanther wrote: It's the equivalent to saying "All Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists and they share a tag so therefore must all fall into the same category of beliefs."
When Muslims engage in terrorist acts, most other Muslims condemn them for it and call their actions un-Islamic. Furthermore, you can examine the ideological texts and teachings of Muslims to find that terrorism actually is incompatible with the Muslim faith.
Sigh, you're still being intellectually dishonest. I guess I can't debate you if you're just going to pretend your argument is infallible and ignore the obvious flaws in it. It's a self-identified group.
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women.
If that was true it would be called equalism, no?
Very interesting videos.
You're right, feminism isn't necessarily about attempting to establish equal rights for both sexes. That wasn't a reasonable statement. Some people consider feminism's purpose to be establishing equal rights for both sexes, but the prevailing interpretation of its purpose is establishing equal rights for women.
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
Equal rights for one half = equal rights for both halves. Meh.
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differently in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
On April 09 2012 00:49 Rainling wrote: the purpose of feminism is to establish equal rights for men and women.
If that was true it would be called equalism, no?
Very interesting videos.
that's just silly. the nametag feminism was given to the movement at a time where genders were absolutely unequal in terms of rights. trying to invalidate the movement by stating that the name is slightly archaic.. I don't really see the merit of this. The purpose of feminism is, has been, and will always be to establish equal rights for men and women, not to establish superior rights for women compared to men.
Allow me to elaborate: It's very possible to argue that feminism has gone "far enough" and that there's not much, if any need, for official policing anymore. It's very possible to find valid arguments against all types of affermative action - among these that you consider "the best man for the job", or "employer's freedom in choosing who to hire" as overriding principles, or "it invalidates the efforts of females who actually qualified by their own merits because it adds suspicion that they only got the job because the employer was forced to fulfill some quota". There are more, but I'm content with listing these. And while this doesn't apply specificly to you mrtoasty, what really irks me, is when people invent some type of grander, man-hating motive to this whole process.
Gender-related quota schemes have the intention of reducing/eliminating historical imbalances between genders. They're considered important because people have a strong tendency to hire/favour those similar to themselves, thus this historical imbalance is considered something that would never be eliminated without official policing. Further, there were logical reasons why different societies evolved into patriarchies in the past. These reasons are no longer relevant, thus attempting to make society move away from the patriarchy of the past is also a logical course of action. Stating that you think it has gone far enough, that you feel genders have equal opportunities in today's society, is valid (although it is also less correct the further you move from scandinavia). Stating that the methods used to reach this goal are counter-productive, or that they're harmful in other ways, is absolutely valid. But don't question the motives: the goal of feminism is still to give equal rights to both genders.
(and don't quote me some irrelevant militant feminist to prove me wrong, those are not responsible for policy making.)
I actually dislike most of the videos on FF but this one is relevant.
I watched the youtube video and it would have a point if non radical feminism is most common and most importantly, if it has a different agenda. So, how common is non radical feminism and what does it stand for?
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differently in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
I could see inbreeding playing a part maybe... but yeah that sounds pretty far fetched.
I actually dislike most of the videos on FF but this one is relevant.
I watched the youtube video and it would have a point if non radical feminism is most common and most importantly, if it has a different agenda. So, how common is non radical feminism and what does it stand for?
a non-radical feminist is pretty much exactly like everyone else, except they want equal rights for both genders. A feminist literally means; a person advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
A thought occurs: that's hopefully an accurate description for every poster on this entire forum. The problem is that the term "feminist" has been mislabeled to such a degree that to many, it is now synonymous with "radical, insane man-hater", but you really shouldn't blame feminists for that, you should blame the ones guilty of the mislabeling.
On April 12 2012 14:12 Nevermind86 wrote: The episode about IQ and race was the best so far, brings some light to the subject. The theory about the jews doing only accounting in the middle ages slowly making them superior in mathematical skills does hold some weight, that could be the reason why now they are better at math, the same goes with dark latinos like myself, some 100 years ago most likely 100% of my 'race' were doing hard labour in farms where mathematical skills were not needed, it's obvious my ancestors weren't going to develop such a skill, therefore it's no surprise the average jew does better than the average latino in math,we could probably whip them in a boxing ring though lol.
I remembe when this episode aired, and there was a gigantic hulabaloo about how racist Harald Eia was. I applaud him for being brave enough to talk about issues that are generally taboo in Norway (yes we have free speech, but i.e. being far right or talking about "races"* is extremely frowned upon and most people won't even listen). Accepting simple things like "races" exist and that our DNAs are different would be very nice for fields like the medical sciences, not having to use primitive treatments like defaulting to the same types of medicines and dosages for people, instead of doing a genetest to determine what would be most efficient for that person. Like someone already mentioned, he is definitely some sort of national hero, if not for this, then for all his previous shows.
What you say about developing mathematical skills over such a short time sounds strange, though. Can't remember the videos any longer, does it get implied? Wouldn't evolving into a group of people whose brains adapted to being more efficient in math and accounting would take millions and millions of years, even with such a forced path. On the other hand, the nurture side would probably weigh heavily, teaching their kids the crafts from a young age, and refining their way of teaching it.
*I write races in "" because it's used differentlyit in humans. We are all homo sapiens sapiens, but our DNA can vary to an amount that would equate to different races in animals. Iirc africans and northen europeans can be as much as 3% different?
I've practiced martial arts a lot and love watching boxing, there are clear differences between the races, you 'figure them out' while practicing with different people... Look at boxing, the lightest divisions are dominated by champions of japan, the philipines, some africans, etc, from like 122 pounds to 140 pounds mexicans and some other latin americans bring it, also african americans, then in the middleweight divisions the african americans rule supreme, then in the heavyweight division east europeans rule.
Why is that, well my explanation it's hard to put in scientific terms but it goes something like this: The japanese/philipines peoples are naturally shorter and leaner, their natural self is at about 5'6"-5'8" at that height their muscles are fully developed, a person from Holland where the average man is much taller, if he were 5'6" his muscles wouldn't look good, they would look like the ones of a teenager, hell even his face, a bellow average man "genetically"; in the 122 to 140 pound divisions latin americans rule, they are a little taller but their muscles at 5'7"-5'9" look fully developed, all good mexican champions are from those weights; at middleweight african americans rule supreme because they are tall, fast and strong but lean enough to make weight; then in the heavyweight division nordic and eastern europeans rule because they are 6'5"-6'7" but at that weight they are still lean and big muscles. The heavyweight division is the most interesting one, 'back in the days' where Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Hollyfield ruled, these african americans were naturally shorter and lighter than these days heavyweights, Ali of all those was the tallest one at 6'3" and around 215 pounds... compare that to Vitali Klichko at 6'7" 245 pounds... it's very hard to find an african american with Klitchko's size and that still does good, the same can be said about japenese middleweights, even though they can be tall at 6'1" or 6'2" they are noticeably slower, weaker than african americans, before the fight happends you kinda now that genetically they don't stand a chance, the physical differences are too noticeable, also you cannot find a mexican heavyweight that is top level in boxing history, also you cannot find an eastern european in the lower weight classes, and in the cases you do find a mexican heavyweight or a flyweight eastern european they probably don't have talent at all, compared to their country men in the 'right' weight classes.
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...".
Yes, of course they should. I'm not defending them in anyway, I'm just explaining the sad truth. A sociologist/psycholgist giving up on the nature vs nurture debate can't simply do research on genes. They don't have the knowledge.
Another thing about IQ and race is that there are not that many 'pure races' anymore, a lot of african americans have white blood too, same with latinos, etc, it's hard to say then that african americans do worse at IQ tests because of race if they have white blood in their veins too. http://www.skepdic.com/iqrace.html This is a good read, maybe there are differences in IQ between races but as much as 20 points doubt it, that is too big, but small differences of few points could really be there, the same way that mexicans are naturally shorter than eastern europeans.
On April 12 2012 14:50 BluePanther wrote: Sigh, you're still being intellectually dishonest. I guess I can't debate you if you're just going to pretend your argument is infallible and ignore the obvious flaws in it. It's a self-identified group.
You're arguing that I can't judge a group by the actions and words of its members. By that logic, no group can ever be criticized.
Your position is the one that's intellectually dishonest.
On April 12 2012 13:54 Rainling wrote: I do not understand why you believe that feminist ideology is inherently sexist because it attempts to achieve equal rights for women and does not typically concern itself with achieving equal rights for men.
I don't. I think feminism is deceptive in this regard, because feminists frequently claim to care about men's rights as well, but this in and of itself doesn't make them sexist.
The reason why feminist ideology is inherently sexist has to do with its core theories, such as patriarchy theory, rape culture, male privilege, and the gender gap. All of these are predicated on sexist assumptions, bad statistics, and blind reasoning. Further, the sexism behind these theories can easily be witnessed when manifested through feminist actons and legislation.
On April 13 2012 01:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: The problem is that the term "feminist" has been mislabeled to such a degree that to many, it is now synonymous with "radical, insane man-hater", but you really shouldn't blame feminists for that, you should blame the ones guilty of the mislabeling.
I'm just quoting this here. Because some people ought to read it and think about it for a bit.
On April 13 2012 01:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: The problem is that the term "feminist" has been mislabeled to such a degree that to many, it is now synonymous with "radical, insane man-hater", but you really shouldn't blame feminists for that, you should blame the ones guilty of the mislabeling.
I'm just quoting this here. Because some people ought to read it and think about it for a bit.
Except it's wrong. Labels and stereotypes don't always spontaneously arise for no reason. Do you really think feminists got that reputation through no fault of their own?
Further, I'd say feminist = radical, insane man-hater is an exaggeration. However, it is not an exaggeration to say that feminists as a group (obviously this means that not all individuals are included) are sexist, statistically challenged, and deceptive (even if for many this is unintentional).
On April 12 2012 19:32 seppolevne wrote: Equal rights for one half = equal rights for both halves. Meh.
As evidenced by reality, this actually isn't true. Equality encompasses many aspects, and fighting to equalize only the aspects where you are behind while ignoring the rest cannot achieve equality. For example, feminists established a 40% female quota for corporate board members in Norway, but (even leaving aside the incredible sexism and statistics fail of that) you can be sure that they didn't fight for a 40% male quota in professions where they are underrepresented, nor did they do anything about the fact that dangerous jobs are mostly occupied by men.
To use a Starcraft analogy, if Zerg has a weak early game and a strong lategame vs. Terran, and you fight to make the Zerg early game equal to Terran's while leaving late game alone (and even suppressing efforts by Terrans to make their late game better), then you end up with an unequal game.
Fighting sexism against women and ignoring sexism against men is not fighting for equality.
On April 13 2012 01:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: A feminist literally means; a person advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Feminsts claim to mean that. That doesn't mean it's true.
Political groups of all sorts claim positive goals, but actions speak louder than words.
Neo-nazis claim to be a white civil rights group. Does that mean it's true?
On April 13 2012 06:21 sunprince wrote: Further, I'd say feminist = radical, insane man-hater is an exaggeration. However, it is not an exaggeration to say that feminists as a group (obviously this means that not all individuals are included) are sexist, statistically challenged, and deceptive (even if for many this is unintentional).
This seems to be the core of your belief and the basis of everything you write about feminism. Yet you never provide any evidence how feminists "as a group" are this sexist and this deceptive. Pulling out some extreme examples isn't going to cut it, and neither is claiming that all feminists are totally fine with those extreme examples without providing any evidence for it.
Sure, feminism can be taken to an absurd degree (and I agree that quotas can(!) be an example of that), but you seem to be on the opposite spectrum of all this, saying things that are about as absurd as some claims from some extreme feminists.
On April 13 2012 06:34 Conti wrote: This seems to be the core of your belief and the basis of everything you write about feminism. Yet you never provide any evidence how feminists "as a group" are this sexist and this deceptive. Pulling out some extreme examples isn't going to cut it, and neither is claiming that all feminists are totally fine with those extreme examples without providing any evidence for it.
My examples only seem extreme because you operate from the assumption that feminism can do no harm. It's a clever little rhetorical tactic: if a feminist does something objectionable, then other feminsts aren't okay with that (even though you fail to show any evidence to show this). What you're effectively using is a no true Scotsman fallacy.
To put it simply, do you disagree that legislative action is indicative of mainstream feminism? If a piece of feminist legislation has enough support to enact it into law, then it's generally fairly obvious that most feminists supported it, no? In that case, the various examples of feminist created/supported/applauded legislation that are blatantly sexist, statistically challenged, and deceptive are legitimate evidence of feminist nature.
Ultimately, actions speak louder than words, and a political group's actions are its advocacy and especially its legislation. Just as you cannot deny that Obamacare is indicative of Democratic nature (even if it doesn't represent 100% of Democrats) and the Bush tax cuts are indicative of Republican nature (even if it doesn't represent 100% of Republicans), you cannot deny that feminist legislation represents feminists.
Sunprince, I honestly think you are picking a tree out of a forest. Males still very much represent the majority in terms of politics, economics, and I would even argue entertainment. In short, the discrimination against women is systematic. The numbers of professions where males are disfavored is small compared to women. The unspoken privileges most males enjoys discredits systematic discrimination against males. I would argue the so called male discrimination happens more on a case by case basis. For example, primary school teachers and nursing.
Look at the big picture and it would be easier to see why affirmative action is implemented. There are numerous flaws with affirmative action but the alternative is worse. A reality where half of the population starts at a disadvantage in most fields.
On April 13 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: Sunprince, I honestly think you are picking a tree out of a forest. Males still very much represent the majority in terms of politics, economics, and I would even argue entertainment. In short, the discrimination against women is systematic. The numbers of professions where males are disfavored is small compared to women. The unspoken privileges most males enjoys discredits systematic discrimination against males. I would argue the so called male discrimination happens more on a case by case basis. For example, primary school teachers and nursing.
Look at the big picture and it would be easier to see why affirmative action is implemented. There are numerous flaws with affirmative action but the alternative is worse. A reality where half of the population starts at a disadvantage in most fields.
Do you realize that biology comes first than society? In the sense that biology determines what is society. The fact women are under-represented in politics or as CEO's doesn't necessarily mean that women are discriminated but that women don't like those types of job. Power for the sake of power is a very masculine thing, which by the way it's mostly not good for anybody except the one that yields power. Women are not natural warriors and that's why they weren't fighting wars in the middleages, it doesn't have to be that they were discriminated, and that is why, why some jobs like CEO's or lawyer where to be succesful you have to have no pity to anybody are not liked by women.
On April 13 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: Males still very much represent the majority in terms of politics, economics, and I would even argue entertainment. In short, the discrimination against women is systematic.
You assume this is because of discrimination. Where is your (hopefully not statistically challenged or outright false) evidence that this the case?
On April 13 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: The numbers of professions where males are disfavored is small compared to women.
The number of dangerous/unsavory professions where women predominate is zero.
On April 13 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: The unspoken privileges most males enjoys discredits systematic discrimination against males.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Contrary to feminist brainwashing, gender privilege is not unidirectional. There are many, many examples of systemic discrimination against men that I've posted throughout this thread. The reality is that females have many disadvantages, and that men have many disadvantages. The fact that feminists like you ignore the latter is blatant sign of your sexism.
On April 13 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: Look at the big picture and it would be easier to see why affirmative action is implemented. There are numerous flaws with affirmative action but the alternative is worse. A reality where half of the population starts at a disadvantage in most fields.
If/where the disadvantages exist, they can be addressed specifically. Quota systems do nothing to achieve equality and are frequently examples of statistics fail.
I really dislike going down the biology line because it is terribly difficult to distinguish cultural conditioning and so called biology. I do have some background in biology(Biotech major), and I still very much remain skeptical in fields such evolutionary physiology. My quaffles is mostly about the non-falsifiable experiments but that is a side point.
My main point is, where does the biology begin and where does it end? It is supremely difficult question which I believe no one can answer adequately. We have grown up in a society where certain messages are broadcasted to us since day 1. Truly as an individual, there would be a myriad of factors that goes into a person's decision for a career. Can we really presume, and say to a person's face that you are biologically inclined for a certain career? Everything the person has done since she has been born, who her friends are, where she is, surely are more important factors than so called biology. Moreover, the biology is so vague where it would do us no favor to pinpoint an exact cause. Perhaps I am downplaying biology too much. But I find who we come down as individuals plays a far more significant role in our decisions in life.
As evidenced by reality, this actually isn't true. Equality encompasses many aspects, and fighting to equalize only the aspects where you are behind while ignoring the rest cannot achieve equality. For example, feminists established a 40% female quota for corporate board members in Norway, but (even leaving aside the incredible sexism and statistics fail of that) you can be sure that they didn't fight for a 40% male quota in professions where they are underrepresented, nor did they do anything about the fact that dangerous jobs are mostly occupied by men.
actually, I myself found myself instantly getting jobs daycare centres for children precisely because I was a man in an occupation where men were underrepresented, and where it was considered beneficial to have an as equal amount of men and women as possible to give the children an ample supply of both male and female role-models.
Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
I really hope that you guys aren't suggesting that we engage in naturalistic fallacy.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
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.
Considering Norway continuously gets rated the most developed country in the world by UNs Human development index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country, I'd say whatever stronghold there is, I'd argue it's a good thing.
Second link, "shut down businesses which don't comply", when did that ever happen? The company I'm working for has no female board members, and there's no legal problem.
Somehow this thread became the permanent "debate feminism" thread. Guess that's because the first video is feminism. Personally I find that the least interesting of them all.
I don't think the video even debates feminism so much as it simply states that research shows biological differences between genders while some Norwegian sociologists reject the possibility entirely. The point isn't feminism, it's ideology rejecting scientific evidence.
On April 08 2012 06:44 ReturnStroke wrote: This is far from an isolated case of ideology/personal gain/etc taking priority over actual science. Although it seems to be popping up in social science even more. It's too bad, but at least people are speaking up about it :/
I agree, there are many hypocritical ideologies which attempt to take over science. However, none are as powerful and socially accepted as much as feminism, barring the exception of religion in some places.
On April 08 2012 06:51 nymfaw wrote: If they want things to be equal, everything should be equal right? Sorry for being semi-OT, just a thing I find really annoying.
Feminist ideology holds that we all live in an unjust patriarchy that oppresses women, and all men benefit from a unidirectional set of privileges solely due to being male. As a result, feminists will tell you that making things equal for men is definitely not a priority since women have it so much worse, and any advantages that women appear to have are more than outweight by the tons of advantages that men have.
On April 08 2012 06:57 Pantythief wrote:
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.
I'm dead serious. If you disagree, feel free to voice a logical criticism rather than cowardly implying that I'm wrong.
"Cowardly implying that I'm wrong.", that's cute. No, thank you, though!
Well, I have to support person A. Norway is, partly, a feministic stronghold. It is quite obvious, when it's in the news and debates all the friggin time. Debate debate and more debate about how women should be just like men. It isn't inherently bad to strive to be better; but they shouldn't strive to be more like men, but strive to be more like women, or whatever they want to be. I find it silly. I find some "feminist" goals should be a no-brainer; like equal pay independent of gender, which is typically not an issue, but what keeps repeating itself is that female nurses are paid less than male nurses, which I personally know nothing about; I just think that, for instance, should be rectified. In other areas, specially in businesses, paygrades are rather individual, but yeah, norwegian feminist politics sticks its collective nose into every nook and cranny looking for discrepancies that have gender as the common denominator, only to make it the political topic of the month. Some of it is good to uncover, while most of it is just showing how dumb the movement to equate women with men actually is.
Safe to say, I haven't watched the news in forever, so I don't have many thoughts about it at anymore. I don't mind that women who want to be just like men get the opportunity to do so. Good for them. But in many ways (no specific examples anymore, sorry. It's been years since I cared) they overstep the political boundaries. Giving special treatment/incentive while calling it a means to make things equal. It is obviously a paradox, yet small incentives can't hurt, obviously; but it get's tiresome. It's like beating a dead horse, it costs money and makes us unhappy. But we can afford it, I guess. I can only immagine what we could accomplish if we didn't try to push things against its natural restraints. If we instead nourished and elevated everything that made us different, so that we could strive for something better, rather than striving for something (an ideology) that isn't natural and is doomed to fail. I'm saying it's certainly worth while to make sure women can feel at home anywhere in society; but it's wrong to base politics on the notion that every woman SHOULD feel at home everywhere in society. It simply isn't realistic; just like every male won't feel at home everywhere in society. Imagine a typical man feeling at home everywhere in society; now where would there be room for typical women with typical female interests? The entire notion of equality is non-sensical and is counter productive to creating a functioning society with happy people feeling at home and doing what they like. Yet we have the money to give it a thorough try -- it seems. As long as there's still oil...
On April 13 2012 07:57 TheBanana wrote: Considering Norway continuously gets rated the most developed country in the world by UNs Human development index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country, I'd say whatever stronghold there is, I'd argue it's a good thing.
I'd say that you're conflating cause and effect. Norway is a feminist stronghold because as the most developed country in the world, it can afford to do things like enact 40% female board member quotas that have decreased the performance of companies that complied by an average of 20%.
On April 13 2012 07:57 TheBanana wrote: Second link, "shut down businesses which don't comply", when did that ever happen? The company I'm working for has no female board members, and there's no legal problem.
The law was specifically applied to 2000 of Norway's largest companies, and some of them dodged it by re-registering as new companies to loophole their way out of it.
On April 13 2012 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
That's my point though. No one minds disporortionate representation at low-status opportunities; feminists don't really complain that there are too few women coal miners, and men don't complain there are too few male babysitters. But when it comes to actually desirable things (e.g. higher pay and better opportunities) that are dominated by women, feminists oppose or at least don't support anything to fix it.
For example, women are now disproportionately represented at the undergraduate level in the United States and some other first world nations. However, feminists regard this as proof that women are better students, and suggesting affirmative action to help men get into college (implicitly, at the expense of women) would never be tolerated by feminsts. By contrast, wherever men dominate, feminists view this as proof of discrimination, rather than evidence of superiority or preferences. There's a sexist double standard going on there.
On April 13 2012 07:54 shinosai wrote: Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
I actually wouldn't argue that men are oppressed are a group. But likewise, I wouldn't argue that women are oppressed as a group either (at least, not in first world nations), and the burden of proof is on feminsts to show that they are (with legitimate facts, not statistics fail like the wage gap), not the other way around.
What I would say is that in modern first-world society, there are still a lot of sex-specific privileges/disadvantages inherent to either sex. That is, men have certain advantages/disadvantages, and women have certain advantages/disadvantages. The key is to work on fixing them for everyone, instead of playing what feminists call the Oppression Olympics (e.g. whining about who's oppressed more).
On April 13 2012 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
That's my point though. No one minds disporortionate representation at low-status opportunities; feminists don't really complain that there are too few women coal miners, and men don't complain there are too few male babysitters. But when it comes to actually desirable things (e.g. higher pay and better opportunities) that are dominated by women, feminists oppose or at least don't support anything to fix it.
For example, women are now disproportionately represented at the undergraduate level in the United States and some other first world nations. However, feminists regard this as proof that women are better students, and suggesting affirmative action to help men get into college (implicitly, at the expense of women) would never be tolerated by feminsts. By contrast, wherever men dominate, feminists view this as proof of discrimination, rather than evidence of superiority or preferences. There's a sexist double standard going on there.
In norway things are starting to go both ways lately. It's probably worse, when not only women are encouraged to be "malplaced" but males are aswell. Might be a bad choice of words but whatever. For instance, recently it was decided that every girl has to go to "session" which is what we call our army-enrollment which is mandatory for boys (serving is mandatory in theory, but only 1/3 get chosen basically, yet everyone has to be present at one initial "session"). Which is nothing but another money-sink where now every single girl has to go to these sessions aswell. It is quite obvious, to any sane human being, that viewing every girl as a potential candidate for the military is retarded, in the true sense of the word. Girls just have to show up tho', waste some oil/tax money and be on their way - to no fault of their own ofcourse. After that they can choose wether they want to join the army or not. Boys who want to join the army are sometimes rejected, due to capacity limits; while girls .. well, not so much ..So it is clear that the norwegian government would rather have women fighting our wars, when they reject boys to accept girls. It works fine while there's peace and oil money. But should there ever be a war for our homecountry (which is one of the biggest reasons to have a military force), wouldn't it be better to recruit people based on other criterias, like strength, agility, perserverance and even accuracy with a weapon, rather than how many girls you can possibly fit in a squad?
Peace times does weird things to us :p
Sociologically I don't mind.. Goo girls, or whatever. But logically it really doesn't compute. It is as with all things. We, specially girls, should feel free and comfortable and at home where ever they want to. Noble notion, paradox in practice, and outright dangerous should things ever get serious.
On April 13 2012 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
That's my point though. No one minds disporortionate representation at low-status opportunities; feminists don't really complain that there are too few women coal miners, and men don't complain there are too few male babysitters. But when it comes to actually desirable things (e.g. higher pay and better opportunities) that are dominated by women, feminists oppose or at least don't support anything to fix it.
For example, women are now disproportionately represented at the undergraduate level in the United States and some other first world nations. However, feminists regard this as proof that women are better students, and suggesting affirmative action to help men get into college (implicitly, at the expense of women) would never be tolerated by feminsts. By contrast, wherever men dominate, feminists view this as proof of discrimination, rather than evidence of superiority or preferences. There's a sexist double standard going on there.
There aren't any desireable jobs dominated by women because women have never been in a position where they could assign themselves more prestigeous or desireable jobs.. This is the entire reason why feminism (equality for both genders) has almost exclusively consisted of providing benefits for females; females have historically been, for lack of a better term, shafted by society.
And in norway, following the realization that girls have been doing better at all levels of the educational system for the past 10-20 years, there has been a lot of political focus on how to make boys perform better. It doesn't only go one way.
Feminism deals with equality between both genders. In norway, we're pretty close to achieving it, and we have actually largely moved away from the word "feminist", and we instead use the word "likestilling", which literally means equality. From my perception of american society, you are not yet in a position where changing feminism to equality makes sense, because the historical imbalances between the genders have yet to be erased.
I can come with an example actually, of how things work in practice. I had my very own 8th grade in science (I'm not an educated teacher, just educated. Nor employed as a teacher), and taking my class to go see Star Trek (2009) was... well, a hazzle. I got a great deal at the local movie-theatre, where we were to pay about 5 bucks per head (which is cheap compared to the typical 18 bucks for a typical ticket). Now collecting 5 bucks per 8th grader, in one of the richest coutnries in the world, is actually illegal. Because we should all be equal, no one is allowed to do anything.
So what we did was, basically, that we had a bakesale at school, so school-children with 1 dollar can buy a slice of cake! Amazing. I bought all the remaining cake-scraps as I figured I'd be the one to pay the remainder anyway, which I was completely fine with. And the remainder, well, I bent the rules. Basically I paid the remainder. Told all my pupils that I'd take care of the rest, but if they wanted they could slip me 2 bucks each so that I potentially wouldn't lose any money on it (I'm just a poor student, but I gladly paid 100 bucks so my class could go see star-trek). I'm not sure if that was actually allowed or not; if the 2 bucks can be viewed as a bribe in our rich and modern society. But atleast no one was excluded. Everyone had equal opportunity to see star-trek for free (read: on my dime). And this has been the trend.
When I went to school this rule did not exist. Yes, school should be free, but activities without school funding were allowed and encouraged if parents stepped in to take the bill. But that was 8 years ago. Now it simply isn't allowed. Collecting money for activities, even 2 bucks for those who would rather see star trek than do school-tasks, creates social differences, where people who can't afford 2 bucks have to stay at school, while the rest go see star-trek. So, norwegian politics decided it be best if no one ever did anything.. My voice in this was that I could fund it. Or we could collectively work to fund things (quite impractical when I only have 2-3 hours every week to teach them science). So for such a rich country, we sure lack basic freedoms to do what we want. All in the name of equality. If not EVERYONE can do it, no one should be allowed to.
On April 13 2012 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Norwegian males who apply for jobs in fields dominated by women will generally find that they are absolutely favourized. The difference is that generally jobs dominated by women won't have that many male applicants, because they generally pay significantly less.
That's my point though. No one minds disporortionate representation at low-status opportunities; feminists don't really complain that there are too few women coal miners, and men don't complain there are too few male babysitters. But when it comes to actually desirable things (e.g. higher pay and better opportunities) that are dominated by women, feminists oppose or at least don't support anything to fix it.
For example, women are now disproportionately represented at the undergraduate level in the United States and some other first world nations. However, feminists regard this as proof that women are better students, and suggesting affirmative action to help men get into college (implicitly, at the expense of women) would never be tolerated by feminsts. By contrast, wherever men dominate, feminists view this as proof of discrimination, rather than evidence of superiority or preferences. There's a sexist double standard going on there.
There aren't any desireable jobs dominated by women because women have never been in a position where they could assign themselves more prestigeous or desireable jobs.. This is the entire reason why feminism (equality for both genders) has almost exclusively consisted of providing benefits for females; females have historically been, for lack of a better term, shafted by society.
And in norway, following the realization that girls have been doing better at all levels of the educational system for the past 10-20 years, there has been a lot of political focus on how to make boys perform better. It doesn't only go one way.
Feminism deals with equality between both genders. In norway, we're pretty close to achieving it, and we have actually largely moved away from the word "feminist", and we instead use the word "likestilling", which literally means equality. From my perception of american society, you are not yet in a position where changing feminism to equality makes sense, because the historical imbalances between the genders have yet to be erased.
This is very much true, what you say about "likestilling". But it doesn't touch on all the issues where "likestilling" is counter productive, which there are plenty off. So while you, good sir, are not incorrect; "likestilling" is far from perfect in practice.
Basically, what you say does not go against what you replied to. It is informative, but you're both quite right in what you write.
On April 13 2012 08:40 Cutlery wrote: I can come with an example actually, of how things work in practice. I had my very own 8th grade in science (I'm not an educated teacher, just educated. Nor employed as a teacher), and taking my class to go see Star Trek (2009) was... well, a hazzle. I got a great deal at the local movie-theatre, where we were to pay about 5 bucks per head (which is cheap compared to the typical 18 bucks for a typical ticket). Now collecting 5 bucks per 8th grader, in one of the richest coutnries in the world, is actually illegal. Because we should all be equal, no one is allowed to do anything.
So what we did was, basically, that we had a bakesale at school, so school-children with 1 dollar can buy a slice of cake! Amazing. I bought all the remaining cake-scraps as I figured I'd be the one to pay the remainder anyway, which I was completely fine with. And the remainder, well, I bent the rules. Basically I paid the remainder. Told all my pupils that I'd take care of the rest, but if they wanted they could slip me 2 bucks each so that I potentially wouldn't lose any money on it (I'm just a poor student, but I gladly paid 100 bucks so my class could go see star-trek). I'm not sure if that was actually allowed or not; if the 2 bucks can be viewed as a bribe in our rich and modern society. But atleast no one was excluded. Everyone had equal opportunity to see star-trek for free (read: on my dime). And this has been the trend.
When I went to school this rule did not exist. Yes, school should be free, but activities without school funding were allowed and encouraged if parents stepped in to take the bill. But that was 8 years ago. Now it simply isn't allowed. Collecting money for activities, even 2 bucks for those who would rather see star trek than do school-tasks, creates social differences, where people who can't afford 2 bucks have to stay at school, while the rest go see star-trek. So, norwegian politics decided it be best if no one ever did anything.. My voice in this was that I could fund it. Or we could collectively work to fund things (quite impractical when I only have 2-3 hours every week to teach them science). So for such a rich country, we sure lack basic freedoms to do what we want. All in the name of equality. If not EVERYONE can do it, no one should be allowed to.
That's a surprising lack of freedom for such a developed country. But who am I to talk? Here in America you can't attend a public school outside of your district even if you provide your own transportation.
i still think that the whole feminism-thing is wrong. Sure, in theory equal chances for everyone does sound neat, but what about the following problem:
Women tend to group up and stick together, whereas men fight individually and for themselves (general speaking, yeah there are lots of cases where this does not apply). For example, last week i was in a train, listening on a girls conversation. They just had their second day in their class for becoming occupational therapist (sorry if translated wrong), and it had a distribution of like 30 girls and 3 boys. And they couldn't explain themselves why the boys would not immediately form a group and hang out together, because if it was the opposite (30 boys, 3 girls) the girls would almost certainly do so. Throughout my school education, i got really depressed by how most girls just got better grades for being female. Every female teacher bonded with the girls and gave them better grades, and male teachers went for the girls as well. It's not that they got always better grades than they boys, but the reward-for-performance was definately much higher. On a side note, at least 3 out of 4 girls failed in maths in the final exam, because they didn't want to understand math and kept themselves alive for years by just learning formulae and exercises (not doing them, but remembering them).
Furthermore, there is a debate in my country whether big companies should be forced to have at least a certain ratio of women in their highest ranks. Some companies already do (although i guess for PR purposes mostly, lol). But i honestly think that if a women wants to be up there and is made of chief material she can do so already. It's just like our country has a huge lack of male basic school teacher; is that because it is impossible for a man to become a basic school teacher? In fact, it is not. And no ratio that would force an amount of male basic school teachers can fix this problem; certain jobs just do not appeal to men, others do not appeal to women (or they are not able to fulfill the role of that job).
And finally, i am really confused about how to handle women. I try to be as knightly as possible, but with different results. Some women really love and enjoy it, other call me sexist for it. Then there are women who had a sex change and became men, others just want to be treated like i treat men. But i don't think they really get the implications of being treated like a man. And is it okay to get into fistfights with feminists? Or hit them? Because if i do, i'm suddenly the bad guy. But if i don't, i don't treat them like equals? So many problems, so little answers. Yeah, i never had a GF and most probably never will, because i would not want to hurt a girl i like by being with her. But lets not make this personal. Also i don't think someone will read this part, because i am always confused and therefore write confusing things, and my grammar is not on par with what could be expected from a post on TL. Nvm then, i watched one of those videos halfway through and found them really really boring. Don't need some random guy to paint me a picture where i clearly already have my own strong feelings on a topic that is as old as mankind.
I actually dislike most of the videos on FF but this one is relevant.
I watched the youtube video and it would have a point if non radical feminism is most common and most importantly, if it has a different agenda. So, how common is non radical feminism and what does it stand for?
a non-radical feminist is pretty much exactly like everyone else, except they want equal rights for both genders. A feminist literally means; a person advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
A thought occurs: that's hopefully an accurate description for every poster on this entire forum. The problem is that the term "feminist" has been mislabeled to such a degree that to many, it is now synonymous with "radical, insane man-hater", but you really shouldn't blame feminists for that, you should blame the ones guilty of the mislabeling.
This is interesting.
For those that don't understand why I asked what non radical feminists want to achieve, if people call themselves feminists without supporting anything special, without having any agendas and so on the label doesn't mean anything.
Part of the reason feminism got hijacked is probably simply because in some countries most of the traditional goals were reached. I was born in the 70's and my mom was an active feminist. In many ways what they stood for is the opposite of modern feminism. Central issues back then were things like abortion rights, sexual freedoms, same pay for same job, nudity taboos etc. For example their efforts for more relaxed views on sex is arguably being destroyed by modern feminism, by the amplification of sexual fears.
How common "radical" feminism is depends on where you look, which is why I asked. You wont find many organized so called non radical feminist where I live. And "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men" is a rarity for sure.
Hm. the norwegian scientists really don't like biology. I get the sense that they feel that accepting biology = defeat. Because if it, say violence, is already inherently biological, then the battle is already lost. Biology can't be changed and so they have nothing they can do to reduce violence to begin with. So they work under the premise that violence isn't biological, because then there is possibility for improvement.
However, there can be no improved conditions if the assumptions are wrong, save for dumb luck. Which is what the norwegian scientists, that he asked, hold on to. So maybe he just chose those on purpose, to create a contrast, maybe even seek out someone who is talking slightly outside of their field, just because their job isn't to change biology but rather learned patterns.
Yet, not much can change if you deny much of the actual cause of things. It is like working with a limited toolset.
Clearly more could be achieved if one knew the whole story, and worked with the totality of things. The reply "how does this affect me", and "this does not interest me", were too common responses, that either they are not qualified to answer the questions asked, or they systematically reject the battles they think they cannot win, because for isntance, they feel they can't control biology and nature.
(Trying to bring things back on topic, rather than letting feminism take the grand spot :p)
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
On April 13 2012 07:54 shinosai wrote: I really hope that you guys aren't suggesting that we engage in naturalistic fallacy.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
No, I'm not using Moore's definition. I'm referring to the appeal of nature. Specifically where someone uses biology as a reason for why things should continue to be the way they are. It is more "natural" for women to choose jobs that involve less power, therefore it is not discrimination but "natural" biology which has led to current imbalances, and therefore, ought not to be fixed, since natural=right.
Problem being is that just b/c things happen to be a particular way does not mean they ought to, or must be, that way. It may be that human beings have naturally evolved to be violent, but this does not mean we have to be violent, or that being violent is right. Likewise, women might have naturally evolved to seek males who have a great deal of power/influence, probably because they lacked power and resources of their own. But that doesn't mean it ought to be this way, or that we cannot change it.
On April 12 2012 14:50 BluePanther wrote: Sigh, you're still being intellectually dishonest. I guess I can't debate you if you're just going to pretend your argument is infallible and ignore the obvious flaws in it. It's a self-identified group.
You're arguing that I can't judge a group by the actions and words of its members. By that logic, no group can ever be criticized.
Your position is the one that's intellectually dishonest.
I said you cannot judge an individual based on the actions of a minority within a group they identify with. YOU said that you can judge a group based on the actions or words of a minority within that group.
On April 13 2012 07:54 shinosai wrote: I really hope that you guys aren't suggesting that we engage in naturalistic fallacy.
Oh, look, sexist patriarchy theory (males = oppressors) in action. Your assumption is that there's no such thing as discrimination against males. Fail.
Strawman fallacy. What you are doing here is basically deflating the term "oppression" so that it applies to everyone. Everyone is oppressed. Therefore, the word no longer has any meaning. If anyone is being honest though, sure, males can be discriminated against. But are they oppressed as a group? To even suggest this is a complete joke. In order to do so one must deflate the definition of oppression to such a degree that it is universal.
You keep using the expression, 'naturalistic fallacy', but it doesn't seem like you mean the same thing by it as G.E. Moore did. What are you talking about?
No, I'm not using Moore's definition. I'm referring to the appeal of nature. Specifically where someone uses biology as a reason for why things should continue to be the way they are. It is more "natural" for women to choose jobs that involve less power, therefore it is not discrimination but "natural" biology which has led to current imbalances, and therefore, ought not to be fixed, since natural=right.
Problem being is that just b/c things happen to be a particular way does not mean they ought to, or must be, that way. It may be that human beings have naturally evolved to be violent, but this does not mean we have to be violent, or that being violent is right. Likewise, women might have naturally evolved to seek males who have a great deal of power/influence, probably because they lacked power and resources of their own. But that doesn't mean it ought to be this way, or that we cannot change it.