|
On May 03 2013 14:01 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that. Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y. So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed? Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. What's disgusting about it? Let's count the ways: 1) The implicit assumption that all women behave the same way when confronted with a particular stimulus, as though they weren't really sentient beings possessed of free will. 2) The explicit assumption that, if a woman were to behave differently when confronted with this stimulus, they would be wrong, or worse still broken in some way. 3) The implicit assumption that men are unchanged by the experience of becoming a father. That is, you focus on the idea that women magically become different people when they give birth, and thus men do not change when they become a parent. Thus men remain sentient, rational beings capable of free will, and women do not. This isn't a "hostile attitude" towards childbearing. It's a hostile attitude towards the fetishization of childbearing. This idea that motherhood is what makes you a woman, that being a woman should be centered around becoming a mother, and if you don't want that, then you are wrong.And that's disgusting.
People like you are exactly why groups like the obnoxious ass MRA even exists.
Biological tendency and 'X happens because of Y' is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth just like any other extreme radical feminist. There's a reason why there's a negative connotation that goes with radical feminists (which a vast majority of modern feminists are). It's because they can't listen to reason/logic/science/etc.
The bolded here is pretty funny. Especially when you start looking at the happiness of women that are highly successful such as CEOs, doctors, engineers, etc. Said women tend to be very unhappy despite having great career success. Most of it tends to be because said women are also single, over 30, do not have children, and still cannot find a companion. Also, if you actually read some decent books on the subject of gender studies (Susan Pinker is a pretty good start) you'll find out that the whole idea of being successful like a man in fact is hilariously stupid most of the time for a vast majority of women.
|
On May 03 2013 20:20 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:01 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that. Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y. So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed? On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. What's disgusting about it? Let's count the ways: 1) The implicit assumption that all women behave the same way when confronted with a particular stimulus, as though they weren't really sentient beings possessed of free will. 2) The explicit assumption that, if a woman were to behave differently when confronted with this stimulus, they would be wrong, or worse still broken in some way. 3) The implicit assumption that men are unchanged by the experience of becoming a father. That is, you focus on the idea that women magically become different people when they give birth, and thus men do not change when they become a parent. Thus men remain sentient, rational beings capable of free will, and women do not. This isn't a "hostile attitude" towards childbearing. It's a hostile attitude towards the fetishization of childbearing. This idea that motherhood is what makes you a woman, that being a woman should be centered around becoming a mother, and if you don't want that, then you are wrong. And that's disgusting. People like you are exactly why groups like the obnoxious ass MRA even exists. Biological tendency and 'X happens because of Y' is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth just like any other extreme radical feminist. There's a reason why there's a negative connotation that goes with radical feminists (which a vast majority of modern feminists are). It's because they can't listen to reason/logic/science/etc.
Prove it.
Seriously, that is an outrageous statement, and completely unsubstantiated. Feminists can't listen to science, reason and logic? The vast majority of feminists are extremist? That's some mighty tough talk, you'd best have some really solid ground to stand on when saying shit like this.
He was absolutely right about the childbearing issue btw, the idolization of reproduction is asinine, and dangerous. You don't get to decide what makes someone happy or creates a sense of contentment with life. Some people don't want children, and your generalizations that women who don't procreate will end up unhappy and bitter is both insulting and patronizing.
|
On May 03 2013 15:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:37 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 15:30 sunprince wrote:
Nice of you to speak for everyone. Keep white knighting, bro.
If anyone wants to participate, they can participate, instead of whining that the culture is not to their liking.
I don't show up on forums I don't belong to and tell them how they should change their rules and protect me from criticism.
Why do you think women are entitled to special treatment? Could it be that you're a sexist who thinks that you're brave from protecting the poor, defenseless women? no, most women/men/people are much more courageous than I am. people are brave, not genders as you well know, and I don't feel particularly brave for spending a few hours sitting on my amply privileged ass trading some barbs and ideas with people that aren't even particularly receptive. save your accolades for the people, usually women, who actually go out with this particular schema and try to make the country less obnoxious, but definitely reserve more than a few cheers for people who advocate societal problems without making it seem like the ones they focus on are the only ones that matter. edit: it's almost like if you look at the most extremist members of any given movement, you can stereotype and caricature a legitimate mode of thought into a joke! thank you sunprince, you have brought light into this cave. On May 03 2013 15:34 sunprince wrote:
So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite? what is this gibberish Your reading comprehension sucks. Luckily for you, I'm feeling patient today: Every single measure I listed is normally used by sociologists to demonstrate that blacks are discriminated against. That is, they receive longer prison sentences, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime, they do worse in all aspects of the educational system, etc. When you apply the same measure to the difference between men and women, instead of blacks and whites, you find that the differences are even more drastic.
But, as with all half-truths, the real truth is in what you don't show. That is, the other metrics "used by sociologists to demonstrate that blacks are discriminated against." Because those aren't all of them.
The median income of blacks to non-blacks. The credit history of blacks vs. non-blacks. The socio-economic status of blacks to non-blacks. And so forth.
And if you apply all of those to women vs. men... you find that women aren't doing so hot in many of them.
Cherry-picking the evidence that supports your position is not merely a logical fallacy; it's willful deception. Because you (or someone who told this to you) had to know that those other metrics existed. And they had to apply them to women vs. men. At which point, that person would see which ones did work and which ones didn't, then conveniently leave the others out.
That's not an accident; that's you trying to spread bullshit.
Just like when you looked solely at death statistics and deduce that society has always favored women because women are protected. Oh sure, women were protected and lived longer... as little more than chattel for men, without any agency in their future. Passed off from father to husband like money.
That's pretty much the definition of "objectification". Yes, you protect your object. You "value" your object. You "care" about your object. But you can't let your object think or act for itself. It's an object; it's not allowed to think for itself. So if it tries that, you smack it around until it stops.
You could equally say that gold was more highly valued than men. Men fought and died for it. Men horded and protected it too. But gold is a thing, not a person.
|
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it.
|
Zurich15310 Posts
On May 03 2013 13:04 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 09:20 Djzapz wrote:On May 03 2013 08:53 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 08:41 farvacola wrote:On May 03 2013 08:38 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 07:53 zatic wrote:On May 03 2013 06:32 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:41 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 20:35 superstartran wrote:On May 02 2013 20:31 Ahelvin wrote:
[quote]
Where do you see a past tense in my post? I said "Feminist IS", not "Feminist WAS, HAS BEEN, or HAS ALWAYS BEEN". When you debate a democrat or a republican, do you debate what people of his or her party said 100 years ago? You do understand that even today that generally most feminists (I don't have an exact number, but I'm willing to bet 90%+) believe that a man should pay for child support, that he should do this, that, etc. and that the woman actually has all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. etc. Not to mention, that feminists even today will fight tooth and nail to prevent women from ever being a part of the draft, despite the fact that they like men have the right to vote. Feminism in general today is a load of bullshit, and it gets exposed big time when you start looking at their positions on child custody, child support, divorce, etc. etc. Alright this is simply completely wrong. Feminism is by definition about gender equality. Feminists oppose all of the things you just listed. You seem to mix up the terms "women" and "feminists" a lot I believe. No, they don't. Don't even fucking lie. Extreme feminists feel that women should have all the power in divorce, child alimony, etc. so don't say that I am wrong. You're the one that is wrong, because I can easily list like 800 articles of feminists opposing more equality on that front. For example, various FEMINIST groups protest and do all sorts of illegal crap to prevent MRA presentations at Universities, but no one ever says anything about. Then again, don't we all just love double standards. Oh, and about women being able to join the Navy? What? http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htmRemember, this is the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT that major feminists groups opposed. Women also historically opposed the military draft during the 1940s because they didn't want to fight in WW2. So all this whole 'feminist wanting equality' is a load of bullshit. Feminists in general have always done what they feel has benefited them, and only benefited them. They could care less about equality among all people. Well, you are wrong. I don't need 800 articles. One dated 2010 or later would suffice. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760223&id=cNZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6643,6064538http://www.firstpost.com/living/dear-lipstick-feminists-alimony-is-not-anti-women-it-empowers-them-746377.htmlhttp://sites.duke.edu/develledish/2011/02/08/is-alimony-unfair-not-so-much-try-feminist/This last article is even better. From a self-proclaimed Feminist about how DNA tests should be banned. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/There's plenty of evidence of proclaimed Feminists that clearly do not give a flying fuck about equality at all. This is evident even today when various feminists argue that women should be able to serve in combat units, but shouldn't have to be forced into the draft (i.e. only wants to have the privilege not the obligation). You can argue till your face is blue, but there are multiple examples of feminists in general not caring about 'equality' at all. None of those sources substantiates your claim that the majority of feminism is anti-egalitarian. Every ideology and movement has its fringes, and it'll take more than a few cherry-picked examples of stupidity to prove that feminism as a whole is against equal rights. The vast majority of 'feminists' today do not care about equality. Those who do/did aren't even involved in the current 'feminist' movement because they are busy living their lives in a relatively equal society (and yes, society today is relatively equal, in fact, it's almost favoring women at this point in quite a few areas). Those who claim themselves to be feminists today are busy proclaiming dumb shit like rape culture, the privileged male (mostly due to higher income), etc. etc. and yet totally ignore things like alimony, child custody, divorce, sexual and domestic violence against men, etc. etc. They proclaim that men have historically have had all the power, and continue to have all the power in society. It's a load of bullshit, and it gets annoying listening to it over and over again (especially in humanities classes, dear fucking god). In short, I don't have a problem with the origins of the feminism movement. They were really never about true equality (look at their historical records; they wanted privileges without obligations), but they didn't overextend their reach like modern feminism does. I wouldn't say "the vast majority" don't care about equality, but a good number of them don't, really. When you mentioned "rape culture" I really had this terrible feeling in my gut because I'm so tired of hearing about it. It's a terrible buzzword which serves no purpose other than getting women riled up over living in a society which, as we know, is full of bad people, and rape is one of the things that unfortunately happens. I don't know how many pictures (which probably originated on Tumblr) tried to justify the usage of the buzzword "rape culture" by citing examples of rape in society and statistics. Shit, a bunch of the concepts they bring up are true, so why do they insist on tying it to this buzzword which is just meant to make it even more scary and and widespread. How are sexy pictures of women in magazines part of rape culture anyway, why do they make that point at all? There are pictures of men with their super cut 6packs on other magazines and that's got nothing to do with rape though. Sigh. Anywho, I would call myself a feminist, sometimes I do, despite the fact that I'm a sucker for semantics and I would like for them to make some attempt to use neutral terms instead of buzzwords. Sadly, many women apparently think that men cannot be feminists, and the idea is that we've been meddling in their affairs forever, and now they want to lead their own movements, or whatever. Regardless, I think that we still have some work to do, and if we're gonna do it, hopefully we'll be able to ignore their crazies. It's a shame that so many people choose to have a fully black or white view of the issues that women face. No, a vast majority of MODERN and I do mean modern feminists don't give a flying fuck about equality. At all. They only want to empower the woman, and will degrade and insult the man at any given moment's notice. And when they are in deep shit in an argument, they utilize the cover of 'feminism' in order to cover their asses and say that we're all chauvinistic pigs or some bullshit like that. As various posters have stated, the whole concept of feminism right now is so warped from its original intent that it is stupid. Anyone that argues about rape culture, the privileged / patriarchal male, blah blah blah, is who I would consider one of those 'modern' feminists. And that's the form that most feminists fall under now adays, because they talk all this nonsense about how women work in hostile male dominated environments (false for the most part), how males make more money (true but not for the reasons the modern feminists say), how women still need all these 'empowering' privileges, etc. See, I wouldn't even call Kwark a 'feminist.' I'd call him a equal rights supporter that is gender neutral. Completely different from feminism (both modern and historical versions). Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 12:56 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 12:31 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 03 2013 12:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 03 2013 11:59 NEOtheONE wrote:On May 02 2013 20:01 Ahelvin wrote:On May 02 2013 19:57 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 19:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:36 nttea wrote:
Oh my god you guys are unbearable... Seriously a girl gets upset over trolls and you all get a stick up your ass over it, for every girl complaining about sexism there's like 20 dudes complaining about girls complaining over sexism. How about man up? Why is girls complaining about sexism so incredibly important an issue to you that you constantly have to point out how ridiculous you think they are? The replies to this topic so far have been pretty demoralising. Whenever a topic like this comes along I like teamliquid a little less. I could not agree with both of these statements more. In the first page of responses alone, there are so many of the standard sexist trope responses: * She is attention seeking. * I have it just as bad being a man, but I can't complain about it. * Names don't bother me or some other random female I make up, therefore she should not be bothered either. * Sexism doesn't exist. etc etc etc It's impressive to me that she has the passion for games and such that she is willing to put up with all the bullshit and still produce content. What people do not also realize is that feminism is not about THREATENING MEN. It's about asking for gender not being a valid basis for prejudice, may it be for men and women. Feminism is also realizing men do not have to "man up" all the time, and have the right to display interest in things that are not "manly". Do you feel comfortable being around jocks constantly reminding you that you are not a real man because you do not watch sports, or workout, or that videogames are for sissies? Then congratulation, you are in some way a feminist. Stop pretending these things do not exist. Last I checked feminism is about empowering women. Hence femin-ism. "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women." The dictionary even uses a nearly identical definition. Feminism is not non-sexism and therefore focuses more on women and what men and other women do negatively to women and what can be done to stop that. I don't appreciate being told to "man up," but I also don't appreciate automatically being labeled a feminist. I would argue that labels are a big part of the issue. Labels put people into a box. A person with a mental illness is "crazy," someone with developmental delays is "retarded," A person who picks on someone else (often because of his/her own insecurities) is a "bully," someone really smart is a "nerd," someone that spends a lot of time online is a "no-lifer," hell even the label of "troll" reduces a person to a simplistic notion that in no way adequately describes what all makes up that individual. The problem is you cannot make everyone on the earth stop using labels. You can only control yourself; however, you can be an example to others. Nothing is going to be accomplished by simply complaining about it online. ...I'm not sure what definition you just read, but the one you cited stated that it was specifically aimed at "defining, establishing, and defending equal...rights for women." Yes, it is about empowering women - empowering them to be equal, not inferior. As for labels, the human mind inevitably uses labels - it's embedded in our psychology, it's how we conceptualize ideas, there are discrete entities of signifiers labeling some sort of signified, and they will always be shaped by knowledge. We can never get rid of labels, even ones that we ourselves employ, so the next best thing is to increase our awareness of those labels, to maximize our self-consciousness as human beings, and articles like the one in the OP help do that. So yes, you are a feminist, just as you are probably a humanist, just as you are probably a rational being. These are all labels. They are all inevitable. They are ones that you either will or will not recognize, but if you do not recognize these labels you will see yourself in other labels, other descriptors that build a paradigm for yourself. And if you better understand what it means to be a "feminist" then you will better understand what ideas you are talking about. While you have a well reasoned argument I think you missed my point. I will try to break it down in a way that is less likely to be misinterpreted. 1. Feminism focuses on women and improving conditions for women. It does not focus on things that need to be improved for men. A subset of feminists realize that simply improving things for women is not enough and things need to be improved for men as well. There are also people that are not associated with feminism rather who are associated with masculinism that also believe this. 2. On the point of labels, I am getting at that labels are used as ways to judge people as inferior in some way. The emphasis is put on the label and not on the person. I do not see ADHD people, I see people dealing with the issues associated with having ADHD. This seemingly subtle distinction is the difference between viewing the person as the problem and viewing the person as dealing with a problem. The definition of feminism isn't strictly focused on women at the exclusion of men - the definition refers to an equal relationship between women and men, and the very nature of this relationship inevitably entails that men be involved. Remember that some of the earliest American feminists were also abolitionists, whose cause entailed the liberation of black men. As for labels, I see what you're getting at, and perhaps this is just a semantic issue - perhaps you would rather be understood as a "person who supports feminism" rather than a feminist? Regardless, there's still an issue with the analogy you draw because your view of labels is strictly looking at judgment of inferiority. The reason why psychologists/psychiatrists would prefer to discuss people in terms of "individuals with ADHD" rather than "ADHD persons" is that there is a clear stigma attached to ADHD/mental illness. But that's exactly the root problem - the stigma, not the labels. The label is simply the medical professionals' tool for dealing with a bad situation as is. If you want to rectify the underlying situation, however, you have to challenge that stigma. And your hesitance to be "labeled a feminist" is borne out of your concession to the stigma attached to feminism, when it seems like you, as a reasonable person, would agree that feminism isn't on whole a bad thing. Feminists were abolitionists/supported abolitionists because it was convenient to them at the time, not because they truly believed in it. They kicked them to the curb when they didn't need them, just like how the feminist movement during the 1900s kicked everyone else to the curb when they didn't need them later on down the road.
So can we get one of those 800 articles about modern feminism opposing equality or not?
|
On May 03 2013 16:36 delarien123 wrote:I agreed with her until this Show nested quote +From the story
Then, of course, there are comments that seem nice but are equally inherently sexist. In the picture above, ‘JackArtStudios’ has thanked me for wearing uncomfortable t-shirts and used some hugely negative stereotypes. Some women may exploit their sexuality for views but others do it for comfort, or because they didn’t want to change their clothing. Or because they didn’t consider anyone would be indecent enough to harass them because they’re physically female. There is no logical reason to assume that any woman has changed her apparel to appeal to you.
(Shes assuming he thinks she is doing it only for him. What a bitch.)
By ‘thanking’ a woman for catering her clothing to your ideals, you are telling her you’d respect her much less if she hadn’t worn what you consider to be decent. While I always, always appreciate positivity (and the comment on the content, hooray!) this just further reinforces the idea that women can’t wear whatever they like without compromising perceptions of their professionalism. There is no choice here, and the same kind of comments regularly apply to make-up. If you’re wearing obvious amounts of make-up or wearing a certain kind of clothing, it’ll likely be assumed you want attention and your content or integrity will be disregarded, even though you probably aren’t wearing either of those things to appeal to anyone but yourself.(Well if you dress like a fucking slut. I will consider you a person wearing a sluts uniform. Dave Chapelle said it best.) She can go (excuse my langauge) fuck herself. Someone was being nice and supporting her yet she degrades him. I don't think she understands that SHE IS A FEMALE there is a big difference between sexism and someone just commenting on something they found nice that you did. It would be like if a female thanked me for wearing clothing to cover up my muscles, but no he is sexist for supporting HER CHOICE. I will never understand women but this "sexism" thing has gotten out of hand. You are a womAn, things that pertain to that gender will always be there period. The same way I am a male and will always have certain standards placed upon me. DEAL WITH IT
No. That post was what we call a "backhanded compliment". I'm sure that he thinks he's being nice. But that actually makes it one of the worst comments there. At least most of the others probably know that they're being dickheads and just don't care because there are no consequences. With him, he thinks that he's sincerely being caring and supportive towards her.
This comment is basically someone saying, "Thank you for dressing in a way I approve of. Because if you didn't dress in a way I approve of, I'd consider you a slut/attention whore scrounging for likes/subscribes."
People have the right to dress as they see fit (within reason). People do not have the right to prejudge others based on that. People should not have to dress modestly, in tight and uncomfortable outfits, just to avoid other people being assholes.
And Dave Chapelle can go fuck himself (to the extent that he actually believes in that comment, rather than simply making a theoretically funny remark as he likely was).
And no, just accepting that sexism will always exists is defeatist. Maybe black people in the 50s and 60s should have said the same thing, that "things that pertain to that race will always be there period". There is no reason why we should have to accept the status quo, where assholes get to make you dress a certain way.
|
On May 03 2013 20:30 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:20 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 14:01 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that. Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y. So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed? On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. What's disgusting about it? Let's count the ways: 1) The implicit assumption that all women behave the same way when confronted with a particular stimulus, as though they weren't really sentient beings possessed of free will. 2) The explicit assumption that, if a woman were to behave differently when confronted with this stimulus, they would be wrong, or worse still broken in some way. 3) The implicit assumption that men are unchanged by the experience of becoming a father. That is, you focus on the idea that women magically become different people when they give birth, and thus men do not change when they become a parent. Thus men remain sentient, rational beings capable of free will, and women do not. This isn't a "hostile attitude" towards childbearing. It's a hostile attitude towards the fetishization of childbearing. This idea that motherhood is what makes you a woman, that being a woman should be centered around becoming a mother, and if you don't want that, then you are wrong. And that's disgusting. People like you are exactly why groups like the obnoxious ass MRA even exists. Biological tendency and 'X happens because of Y' is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth just like any other extreme radical feminist. There's a reason why there's a negative connotation that goes with radical feminists (which a vast majority of modern feminists are). It's because they can't listen to reason/logic/science/etc. Prove it. Seriously, that is an outrageous statement, and completely unsubstantiated. Feminists can't listen to science, reason and logic? The vast majority of feminists are extremist? That's some mighty tough talk, you'd best have some really solid ground to stand on when saying shit like this. He was absolutely right about the childbearing issue btw, the idolization of reproduction is asinine, and dangerous. You don't get to decide what makes someone happy or creates a sense of contentment with life. Some people don't want children, and your generalizations that women who don't procreate will end up unhappy and bitter is both insulting and patronizing.
Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children granted, but in a topic like this I would assume we are dealing with averages, and the average woman does want children to argue anything else would be silly. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
|
On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
Oh please. Don't fall into the trap of believing that fundamentalists have some monopoly on dismissing science. As a general rule, people will dismiss whatever doesn't fit into their world-view. No matter how well evidence or well reasoned, they will find something to dismiss it. Even if that something is a misrepresentation, a half-truth, or an out-right lie.
|
On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it.
That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right?
At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in.
Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate.
I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too.
No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman.
|
On May 03 2013 20:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists. Oh please. Don't fall into the trap of believing that fundamentalists have some monopoly on dismissing science. As a general rule, people will dismiss whatever doesn't fit into their world-view. No matter how well evidence or well reasoned, they will find something to dismiss it. Even if that something is a misrepresentation, a half-truth, or an out-right lie.
Yeah, true enough. I simply meant that they sounded like it. A lot of people dismiss can anything, as you say. I'm just seeing a pattern with "some commentators in this thread" and "sociology" that looks like the pattern with "creationists" and "biology". And seeing how TL has a lot of threads on creationism, I thought it would be a good example to bring up.
|
On May 03 2013 20:51 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:30 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:20 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 14:01 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 13:21 superstartran wrote:On May 03 2013 13:17 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:15 FrankWalls wrote:On May 03 2013 13:12 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 13:09 superstartran wrote:
What? Generations of conditioning has nothing to do with females being more geared towards jobs that are related to empathy. It also has nothing to do with women wanting to have a family and raise children, all which are biological factors. Being an engineer, a corporate CEO, or any other high stress job is typically incompatible with some of the biological goals/wants/needs of a woman. As such, they tend not to be in those jobs. It's not rocket science at all.
"biological goals" rofl "biological needs" rofl i don't know how much longer i can be in this thread for i really dont understand why it's absurd to suggest that men and women could be greatly affected and differentiated by biological (and the resulting chemical) means probably because there is absolutely no consensus on what those differentiations amount to. it is unbelievably patronizing to insinuate that only men can handle tech jobs and positions of authority, and more importantly based on this argument that biology = social necessity, only men should want to. Yes, because over 10,000 years of civilization saying males tend to be hunter/gatherers/protectors and women being caretakers isn't good evidence that men tend to take higher stress jobs and women tend to choose to stay at home/raise families. Because who cares about biology and 10,000+ years of human history. And no one said that's how it is/should be. I said that biologically males/females tend to be attracted to those roles based on their biological make-ups. That's it. Not that you can't change that. Your last paragraph is exceedingly confused. If you can change it, it's not biology. "Biology" in this context means "pre-programmed". It means that the firmware is hard-wired to do X. You can't hack the firmware to make it not do X. You can try to do an end-run around the firmware with software, but that still means there's a proclivity to do X, and that the hacked version will never be as good at Y than someone with firmware that naturally wants to do Y. So what is it: is it something that can be changed (and therefore sociological in nature)? Or is it something biological and thus can't be changed? On May 03 2013 13:29 xDaunt wrote:
What's so disgusting about it? Motherhood is a wonderful thing. I watched my wife change literally overnight when our first was born.
The hostile attitude of feminists towards childbearing is why I don't take them seriously. It's completely ridiculous. What's disgusting about it? Let's count the ways: 1) The implicit assumption that all women behave the same way when confronted with a particular stimulus, as though they weren't really sentient beings possessed of free will. 2) The explicit assumption that, if a woman were to behave differently when confronted with this stimulus, they would be wrong, or worse still broken in some way. 3) The implicit assumption that men are unchanged by the experience of becoming a father. That is, you focus on the idea that women magically become different people when they give birth, and thus men do not change when they become a parent. Thus men remain sentient, rational beings capable of free will, and women do not. This isn't a "hostile attitude" towards childbearing. It's a hostile attitude towards the fetishization of childbearing. This idea that motherhood is what makes you a woman, that being a woman should be centered around becoming a mother, and if you don't want that, then you are wrong. And that's disgusting. People like you are exactly why groups like the obnoxious ass MRA even exists. Biological tendency and 'X happens because of Y' is not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth just like any other extreme radical feminist. There's a reason why there's a negative connotation that goes with radical feminists (which a vast majority of modern feminists are). It's because they can't listen to reason/logic/science/etc. Prove it. Seriously, that is an outrageous statement, and completely unsubstantiated. Feminists can't listen to science, reason and logic? The vast majority of feminists are extremist? That's some mighty tough talk, you'd best have some really solid ground to stand on when saying shit like this. He was absolutely right about the childbearing issue btw, the idolization of reproduction is asinine, and dangerous. You don't get to decide what makes someone happy or creates a sense of contentment with life. Some people don't want children, and your generalizations that women who don't procreate will end up unhappy and bitter is both insulting and patronizing. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30. Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly. The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
I find this interesting, because it assumes by omission that men don't have the exact same urges to procreate that women do. The only potential difference is which side is on a clock.
Do people want to procreate? Generally speaking, yes. Do women want to do it more than men? Are they more biologically inclined to it than men? Not really. Or at the very least, there doesn't seem to be any particular evidence for it.
The fact that you "Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate," is completely irrelevant. The rest of your claims are also similarly unsubstantiated. Do you have any evidence that "women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30" is even remotely true? Or that the proportion of women who don't procreate who end up unhappy will be any greater than the proportion of men who don't procreate?
The human race as a whole likes to fuck and make more of itself. I don't see any reason to assume that women are in any way different from men in this regard. So whatever biological imperatives drive women to procreate seem to work just as well for men.
|
On May 03 2013 20:47 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 16:36 delarien123 wrote:I agreed with her until this From the story
Then, of course, there are comments that seem nice but are equally inherently sexist. In the picture above, ‘JackArtStudios’ has thanked me for wearing uncomfortable t-shirts and used some hugely negative stereotypes. Some women may exploit their sexuality for views but others do it for comfort, or because they didn’t want to change their clothing. Or because they didn’t consider anyone would be indecent enough to harass them because they’re physically female. There is no logical reason to assume that any woman has changed her apparel to appeal to you.
(Shes assuming he thinks she is doing it only for him. What a bitch.)
By ‘thanking’ a woman for catering her clothing to your ideals, you are telling her you’d respect her much less if she hadn’t worn what you consider to be decent. While I always, always appreciate positivity (and the comment on the content, hooray!) this just further reinforces the idea that women can’t wear whatever they like without compromising perceptions of their professionalism. There is no choice here, and the same kind of comments regularly apply to make-up. If you’re wearing obvious amounts of make-up or wearing a certain kind of clothing, it’ll likely be assumed you want attention and your content or integrity will be disregarded, even though you probably aren’t wearing either of those things to appeal to anyone but yourself.(Well if you dress like a fucking slut. I will consider you a person wearing a sluts uniform. Dave Chapelle said it best.) She can go (excuse my langauge) fuck herself. Someone was being nice and supporting her yet she degrades him. I don't think she understands that SHE IS A FEMALE there is a big difference between sexism and someone just commenting on something they found nice that you did. It would be like if a female thanked me for wearing clothing to cover up my muscles, but no he is sexist for supporting HER CHOICE. I will never understand women but this "sexism" thing has gotten out of hand. You are a womAn, things that pertain to that gender will always be there period. The same way I am a male and will always have certain standards placed upon me. DEAL WITH IT No. That post was what we call a "backhanded compliment". I'm sure that he thinks he's being nice. But that actually makes it one of the worst comments there. At least most of the others probably know that they're being dickheads and just don't care because there are no consequences. With him, he thinks that he's sincerely being caring and supportive towards her. This comment is basically someone saying, "Thank you for dressing in a way I approve of. Because if you didn't dress in a way I approve of, I'd consider you a slut/attention whore scrounging for likes/subscribes." People have the right to dress as they see fit (within reason). People do not have the right to prejudge others based on that. People should not have to dress modestly, in tight and uncomfortable outfits, just to avoid other people being assholes. And Dave Chapelle can go fuck himself (to the extent that he actually believes in that comment, rather than simply making a theoretically funny remark as he likely was). And no, just accepting that sexism will always exists is defeatist. Maybe black people in the 50s and 60s should have said the same thing, that "things that pertain to that race will always be there period". There is no reason why we should have to accept the status quo, where assholes get to make you dress a certain way.
People are totally allowed to judge or prejudge anyone on any ground. holy shit what are you talking about, you need a reality check.
Edit : "allowed" isn't even the correct word - we all do it, most of the time unknowingly.
|
On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another. Show nested quote +
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman.
Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids.
|
On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids.
Our species would not exist if the average man did not want kids either. Your point being?
|
On May 03 2013 21:03 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Our species would not exist if the average man did not want kids either. Your point being?
Some moron was arguing that the average woman doesn't want kids?
Also that's debatable. One male can impregnate many women.
|
On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it.
Nobody needs to do that. It already has been done: click. Gender studies are no refined and well thought out science like physics. They are full of dogmatists.
Edit: Also this thread has run its course. We left the woman who was attacked by internet trolls and ended up at rape & feminism. How . . . predictable.
|
On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids.
Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be.
What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning.
|
This thread is like a bunch of 50 year old men deciding whether or not women should get birth control and whatnot lol.
|
On May 03 2013 21:08 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Can you read? Are you quoting the right person? Where did I write that the average woman did not want kids? That women in general did not want to reproduce? Are you trolling me right now? My patience with fatuousness is not what it used to be. What the argument was, which would have been eminently clear had you bothered to actually consider it, was that the asserted equivalence between femininity and childbearing is stupid and demeaning.
You even bolded it yourself.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason.
Your response:
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too.
I would have thought that the logical conclusion that the species wouldn't exist if the average woman didn't want kids would be proof, but apparently not.
|
On May 03 2013 21:05 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 21:03 NicolBolas wrote:On May 03 2013 21:02 zbedlam wrote:On May 03 2013 20:55 McBengt wrote:On May 03 2013 20:45 Xaddy wrote:
Oh, wow. People are bashing on sociological methodology? I would have thought TeamLiquid, being a nerd haven, would embrace science and put stock in the expertise and professionalism of scientists. But you guys sound like creationists.
The measures sociologies use have been refined and debated upon for more than hundreds of years. You don't think it occured to them that some might be wrong? Stop insinuating yourselves in a full-fledged and mature science without any education in the topic what-so-ever. If gender study scientists says women are the disenfranchised gender and you think they're wrong, go study the topic and publicize papers. If you don't have the time or energy, then do what you do with all other sciences: accept the leading scientists authority and expertise. You don't know shit about science without studying it. That would take thinking, and effort. Much easier to just stereotype feminists and claim that women are in fact living it up at the expense of men. If you say often and loudly enough it has to be true, right? At this point the debate seems pretty much exhausted. Peer reviewed Science says one thing, random folks on the internet another. I'm fairly comfortable with the camp I'm in. Never met a woman that didn't want to procreate. I've met several. My cousin being one, a friend from childhood another.
There is a reason women generally start to panic if they aren't settled by 30.
Some people do not want children. If women were biologically inclined to be indifferent about children on average, we would be a dead species very quickly.
The majority of women that do not procreate will end up unhappy, for the above reason. I am all for equal opportunities for both genders but acting like there are no mental/physical differences between men and women is the kind of illogical thinking that feminists are known for.
Again, support your assertions with proof or kindly keep them to yourself. Being indifferent to children and not wanting children of your own are in no way equivalent. Plenty of men feel that way, myself included. Stands to reason some women would too. No one says men and women are without differences, complete strawman. Our species would not exist if the average woman did not want kids. Our species would not exist if the average man did not want kids either. Your point being? Some moron was arguing that the average woman doesn't want kids?
No, they didn't. Look back at the thread: the first person who mentioned "average woman" and having children was saying what you were saying. Nobody contradicted that specific claim or argued against it.
On May 03 2013 21:05 zbedlam wrote:Also that's debatable. One male can impregnate many women.
It's no less debatable than your point: one woman can have over 8 children. On average, half of them would be women. And given your presupposition, on average, half of those would want to procreate. That means 2 women who want to procreate, from 1 woman who wanted to. The population increases. If they only have 4 children, then the population stays the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
